The URL can be used to link to this page

Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing Public Comments Received prior to Planning Commission meetingPJ Sorensen From: Sent: Mary Metzger <mmetzger@flathead.mt.gov> Friday, March 22, 2024 7:50 AM To: PJ Sorensen Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Website Form Submission -Contact Us [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --00 NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Good morning, I think this comment was meant for your office. Also, your website has an incorrect phone number for people to call our office ... it should be 751-8200. Thankyou@ MaryMet-~ Planning Office Administrator Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 Please note that my last day with the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office will be March 29, 2024. The new Office Administrator will be April Derbyshire. Please email her at aderbyshire@flathead.mt.1QV for assistance. From: webmaster@flathead.mt.gov <webmaster@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:21 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Website Form Submission -Contact Us 1\J-T~ J ~-~\ Website Form submission: 0) -• ~ ♦ ♦ '~# Contact Us OF t,\O"t'' First Name: Mary Last Name: 1 [Email Address: rkuen nen@centu ryli nk. net Subject: Tronstadt meadows Messa,ie: I support affordable housing but please do not allow this development to be built until old west reserve is reconstructed all the way from LaSalle to Farm to Market Road. Also please require that they maintain a green belt over to the Flathead River. *** Please remove this section if forwarding to a NON County recipient*** To view all of this form's submissions, visit: https:/lftathaad,mt.govliodex.php/dashboard/reports/forms/resuttsr,13843H- d0d9·11ec-9825-005056a92717 *** Please remove this section if forwarding to a NON County recipient*** 2 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello PJ, Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:16 PM PJ Sorensen; Brian EXTERNAL Appropriate Notification Not Provided My name is Brian Kelly and I own 220 Highland Drive Kalispell Montana 59901. My neighbor informed me that there is an upcoming meeting on April 9th. for the proposed development called Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing that would boarder my property by well over a 1,000 feet if approved. In short, I will be more greatly impacted by this proposed development than any other home owner in the area. I have received NO notice to date regarding the April 9th. community meeting. My understanding is that I am to be provided a 15 business day notice in the mail & that this notice is supposed to be notarized?. Is my understanding of the above mentioned an accurate guideline set forth by your office? If not, please provide me with an understanding of why I still have not been notified and what the law requires. Given I have not been provided notice, can I request that this meeting be rescheduled until appropriate notice is pr? I work two jobs and require appropriate advanced notice. Thanks in advance for your help on this matter. Respectfully, Brian Kelly 1 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning PJ. Brian < bria n@edd iescafeg lacier.com> Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:43 AM PJ Sorensen EXTERNAL Re: Appropriate Notification Not Provided I received the certified letter in the mail yesterday afternoon. I requested this meeting be delayed until proper notification has been provided. Can you please respond to my request? Respectfully, Brian Kelly Get Qullook for iOS From: Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:15:40 PM To: psorensen@kalispell.com <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: Appropriate Notification Not Provided Hello PJ, My name is Brian Kelly and I own 220 Highland Drive Kalispell Montana 59901. My neighbor informed me that there is an upcoming meeting on April 9th. for the proposed development called Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing that would boarder my property by well over a 1,000 feet if approved. In short, I will be more greatly impacted by this proposed development than any other home owner in the area. I have received NO notice to date regarding the April 9th• community meeting. My understanding is that I am to be provided a 15 business day notice in the mail & that this notice is supposed to be notarized? . Is my understanding of the above mentioned an accurate guideline set forth by your office? If not, please provide me with an understanding of why I still have not been notified and what the law requires. Given I have not been provided notice, can I request that this meeting be rescheduled until appropriate notice is pr? I work two jobs and require appropriate advanced notice. Thanks in advance for your help on this matter. Respectfully, Brian Kelly 2 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Brian < brian@eddiescafeglacier.com > Thursday, April 4, 2024 11 :09 AM Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Appropriate Notification Not Provided Thanks Jarod. To be clear, I just received the notification in the mail yesterday as clearly stated to PJ in my email to him this morning. So I personally was not provided the appropriate time period as stated in your guidelines for notification. It's important that this be understood. I realize the mail service is not reliable but still feel given the circumstances, my request for an extension should be granted. If an extension is not granted, it will be documented that I received a 6 day notice by mail. As we discussed on the phone yesterday, I will be more affected by this proposed development than any other neighbor. I hope you can understand my position on this matter. I appreciate the immediate response. Respectfully, Brian Kelly Get Outlook tur.i.QS From: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 9:38:36 AM To: Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL Re: Appropriate Notification Not Provided Brian, I am responding since we had a conversation yesterday morning. In regards to your question, the meeting will not be delayed as it was appropriately noticed. Jarod 1 From: Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:43 AM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: Appropriate Notification Not Provided Good morning PJ. I received the certified letter in the mail yesterday afternoon. I requested this meeting be delayed until proper notification has been provided. Can you please respond to my request? Respectfully, Brian Kelly Get QutlookJQr iQS From: Brian <brian@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:15:40 PM To: psorensen@ka lispel I.com <psorensen@kalispelI.com>; Brian <bria n@eddiescafeglade r .com> Subject: Appropriate Notification Not Provided Hello PJ, My name is Brian Kelly and I own 220 Highland Drive Kalispell Montana 59901. My neighbor informed me that there is an upcoming meeting on April 9th• for the proposed development called Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing that would boarder my property by well over a 1,000 feet if approved. In short, I will be more greatly impacted by this proposed development than any other home owner in the area. I have received NO notice to date regarding the April 9th• community meeting. My understanding is that I am to be provided a 15 business day notice in the mail & that this notice is supposed to be notarized? . Is my understanding of the above mentioned an accurate guideline set forth by your office? If not, please provide me with an understanding of why I still have not been notified and what the law requires. Given I have not been provided notice, can I request that this meeting be rescheduled until appropriate notice is pr? I work two jobs and require appropriate advanced notice. Thanks in advance for your help on this matter. 2 Respectfully, Brian Kelly Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. 11, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 3 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Cris- PJ Sorensen Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:39 PM Cris Gebbia RE: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development We don't have a requirement for a fence or other buffering between residential uses in our design criteria, so there wouldn't be an automatic requirement for that. I know that the developer is working with other adjoining properties on ways to buffer the project and they might be willing to do something through there. Highland would not be an exit, but there would be a roadway reserve that would allow the properties to the north to connect into the city street if they were to redevelop at some point or otherwise wanted to develop an alternative route. Cln'~ KALISPELL PJ Sorensen, Esq. Senior Planner Development Services Department 2011st Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 psorensen@kalispell .com From: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:26 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development (NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hi PJ, Thank you for the information. The main question was if there was going to be a fence setup (responsibility of the developer) between the subdivision and the Highland Dr. Properties that border the development. Also, wanted to confirm if Highland Dr was potentially going to be used as an emergency exit? Brian is just curious about some of the items with this big of a proposal. I have forwarded your information to him as well. Thanks! Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 1 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.eddiescafuiifts.com APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT From: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:22 AM To: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Cris- I was forwarded your email about the Tronstad project. We have just sent out the public notice on the proposal for the public hearing on April 9 and definitely welcome to attend. We have the application information posted on our website at ~enda -04/09/2024 (kaUspell.com) if he would like to review that, and we would be happy to answer any questions he might have. PJ Sorensen, Esq. Senior Planner <;n\·~ KALISPELL Development Services Department 2011" Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 psorensen@kal ispell .com From: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:36 AM To: PJ Sorensen <~orensen@kalispell.com> Subject: FW: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development See below. From: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:35 AM To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello there, 2 Please see email below. Looking for information. Thanks! Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www. ed cilescategitts,com APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT From: Cris Gebbia Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:21 AM To: kking@kalispeH.com Subject: FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Hi Katherine, I am trying to get information on the following proposed development at Whitetail Crossing and Tronstad Meadows. There was an article recently published in the Flathead Beacon about this proposal. My boss, Brian Kelly, is wondering who he can contact with questions about the neighboring development. He owns the property at 220 Highland Dr. He was also wondering if he is able to attend Kalispell Planning Commission meeting on April 9th or if it is private. I look forward to any information you can provide. Thanks! Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.eddfescafegifts.com 3 APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT From: Erik Mack <emack@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:54 AM To: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: RE: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development The County does not currently have any applications for that property. I believe the property is being proposed for annexation into the City of Kalispell. You will need to contact the City of Kalispell Development Services Department. Thank You, Erik K. Mack, AICP I Planning Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning Any communications with the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office are subject to relevant State and Federal public record and information laws and regulations and may be disclosed without further notice to you. From: Mary Metzger <mmetzger@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:12 AM To: Erik Mack <emack@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development MaryMet-we-,r Planning Office Administrator Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 Please note that my last day with the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office will be March 29, 2024. The new Office Administrator will be April Derbyshire. Please email her at adarbyshire@flathead.mt.gov for assistance. From: Cris Gebbia<> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:10 AM To: Pia nni ng.Zoni ng <Pian ning.Zoni ng@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Hello, 4 I am emailing on behalf of my boss, Brian Kelly, who lives on Highland Dr in Kalispell. I am trying to find out if he is able to attend the first group advisory meeting for the proposed development of the 110 acres at Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows. An article about this was recently published in the Flathead Beacon. Can you please advise if he is able to attend this advisory meeting as a neighbor of the proposed development? If you prefer to communicate via phone, please call Brian at 406-471-7360. Thank you, Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.eddiescafegitts.com APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 5 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Thursday, March 21, 2024 11 :27 AM To: PJ Sorensen Subject: RE: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hi PJ, Thank you for this information. I will pass it along. Sincerely, Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www,edd iescategifts. com From: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:22 AM To: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Cris- I was forwarded your email about the Tronstad project. We have just sent out the public notice on the proposal for the public hearing on April 9 and definitely welcome to attend. We have the application information posted on our website at Agenda T 04/09/2024 (kalispell.com) if he would like to review that, and we would be happy to answer any questions he might have. 1 PJ Sorensen, Esq. Senior Planner an~ KALISPELL Development Services Depaltment 2011" Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 psorensen@ka1ispell.com From: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:36 AM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: FW: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development See below. From: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:35 AM To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development {NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello there, Please see email below. Looking for information. Thanks! Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.eddiescafe~ifts.com APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT 2 From: Cris Gebbia Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:21 AM To: kking@kalispell.com Subject: FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Hi Katherine, I am trying to get information on the following proposed development at Whitetail Crossing and Tronstad Meadows. There was an article recently published in the Flathead Beacon about this proposal. My boss, Brian Kelly, is wondering who he can contact with questions about the neighboring development. He owns the property at 220 Highland Dr. He was also wondering if he is able to attend Kalispell Planning Commission meeting on April 9th or if it is private. I look forward to any information you can provide. Thanks! Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.eddtescafegifts.com APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT From: Erik Mack <emack@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:54 AM To: Cris Gebbia <cris@eddiescafeglacier.com> Subject: RE: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development The County does not currently have any applications for that property. I believe the property is being proposed for annexation into the City of Kalispell. You will need to contact the City of Kalispell Development Services Department. Thank You, Erik K. Mack, AICP I Planning Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning Any communications wlth the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office are subject to relevant State and Federal public record and information laws and regulations and may be disclosed without further notice to you. 3 From: Mary Metzger <mmetzger@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 202411:12 AM To: Erik Mack <emack@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: FW: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Mary Met}ger Planning Office Administrator Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11 th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 Please note that my last day with the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office will be March 29, 2024. The new Office Administrator will be April Derbyshire. Please email her at ad erbys bice@flathead.mt.goy for assistance. From: Cris Gebbia < > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:10 AM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows Proposed Development Hello, I am emailing on behalf of my boss, Brian Kelly, who lives on Highland Dr in Kalispell. I am trying to find out if he is able to attend the first group advisory meeting for the proposed development of the 110 acres at Whitetail Crossing & Tronstad Meadows. An article about this was recently published in the Flathead Beacon. Can you please advise if he is able to attend this advisory meeting as a neighbor of the proposed development? If you prefer to communicate via phone, please call Brian at 406-471-7360. Thank you, Cristinna Gebbia Director of Operations Eddie's Cafe & Apgar Lookout Retreat 236 Apgar Loop Rd West Glacier, MT 59936 (406) 888-5361 www.ed d 1escateg1tts, com 4 APGAR LOOKOUT RETREAT Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. s PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: PJ Sorensen Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:40 PM kuntrydazy@gmail.com Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -.P4f09/2024 (kaUspell.com} if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. <.Tl'¥~ KALISPELL Begin forwarded message: PJ Sarensen, Esq. Sen lor Planner Development services Department 2011 st Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 psorensen@kal ispell .com From: April Derbyshire <aderbyshire@flathead.mt.gov> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kalispell.com>, Jarod Nygren <j.oygren@kalispeU.com:> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, Aprtb VerbyJliu,-17 Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 4011th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy 2 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:33 PM PJ Sorensen EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development image001.png [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Years ago when these con men first started creating this project, we were assured we'd be notified of everything based on us being in a cul de sac significantly affected by the traffic caused by this. It should be on record since it was at a county meeting. This included everyone on Highland Drive and Sirucek and Tronstad Lane, because our ability to exit our houses is directly affected by the traffic this project will cause. Many people came to that meeting to protest this when it was at However they have consistently lied to the neighborhoods affected throughout this process so it doesn't surprise me that they are continuing to do so. They also listed inaccurate contact info on the application as a means to avoid dealing with neighbors while simultaneously declaring they desperately wanted community buy in. This was when they rezoned from 5 acres to 2.5. When neighbors attempted to contact the council, we were consistently ignored. They just used random people living nowhere near this development as "neighbors in favor of the project." At the time they also assured their would never be an entrance on Highland Road. I will forward you the emails I have as evidence of the duplicitous actions of these people, in the hopes that as the city you are not aware of the very disputed history of this property. We will also be procuring legal counsel, from Missoula, as we were told that locally the lawyers will be in the developers back pocket, which is very disturbing to hear from local professionals. Hopefully they will be able to attend the meeting on the 9th and advise our community. In addition I will be contacting everyone on Highland and in other surrounding areas that are opposed and encouraging them to contact you and to attend the meeting. Frank has been involved with this from the beginning, and has lied to the community from the beginning about his intentions with this property. I have a friend who's property literally backs to this, and no one was notified when they somehow switched from 2.5acre density to apparently 4 per acre. This whole project has been consistently deceptive. Now that we are aware, thanks to the news outlets and not the county or the city, we will be opposing this project in any way legally possible, just based on the intention to deceive alone. Hopefully this information helps you and the City make more informed decisions than Frank's deception would have allowed so far. -Mrs. Tuhy l On Tue. Mar 26. 2024. 2:40 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kaUsp,elLcom> wrote: Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -04/09/2024 (kaUspell,com) if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. Begin forwarded message: From: April Derbyshire <adec:byshire@flathead.mt,g,ov> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <kmblPson@kaUspaU . .com>, Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kaUspell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, April-Verby;htre, 2 Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 4011th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <P1anning.2oning@f1athead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy Messages and attachments sent to or from this e~mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 3 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:35 PM To: PJ Sorensen Subject: Attachments: EXTERNAL Fwd: FW: Zone Change Application for Tronstad/Church image002.png [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 4:19 PM Mark Mussman <mmussman@Hatbead.mt.ii),v> wrote: Perhaps Eric can provide you with Mr. Dammel's phone number. Mark Mussman, CFM Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West Kalispell, MT 59901-5607 Phone: 406.751.8200 Fax: 406.751.8210 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:58 PM To: Mark Mussman <mmussman@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Zone Change Application for Tronstad/Church Dear Mr. Mussman, Thank you for your speedy response and advice. I have also reached out to Sands Surveying and Eric Mulchaey (sp?) specifically and have not heard back. I will also attempt an email now per your advice. Is it typical for the contact information of the actual owner on the application to be 1 inaccurate? It seems odd to me that an application would contain incorrect contact information, as it would make it difficult for your office to verify details with the owner. In the board meeting I attended regarding this matter, the Sands Surveying representative said they were not privy to the plans for the actual development of this property, and that Don-Dammel and Tronstad-Church LLC were the people to contact about this. Thank you for your time, Danielle Tuhy Owner and Farmer (406) 249-5438 t kuntrydazy@gman.com 280 Highland Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 www.flatb11df1oedomfann,wc,ohty,com bttps:llwww,facebool<,cODltllvetreeo:rdletffF On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:38 PM Mark Mussman <mmussman@flathead.mt.g_mi:>wrote: Danielle, In application of this sort when the property owner/applicant is an LLC or similar entity and the utilize a consultant, tt is best to contact the consultant with questions as the owner/applicant is usual ly not equipped to answer detailed questions. The consultant for this application is: 2 An email or phone call, including the correct phone number, may answer your questions. Mark Mussman, CFM Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West Kalispell, MT 59901-5607 Phone: 406.751.8200 Fax: 406.751.8210 From: Mary Fisher <mFisher@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:32 PM To: Mark Mussman <mmussman@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: FW: Zone Change Application for Tronstad/Church From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:31 PM To: Planning.Zoning <P1anning.Zoning@f1athead.mt.gov> Subject: Re: Zone Change Application for Tronstad/Church 3 Dear Mr. Mussman, I am writing to you in regards to the Petition for Zoning Amendment from Applicant Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Don Dammel. I am concerned about the validity of this application, and wanted to give Mr. Dammel an opportunity before the Commissioner's meeting on the 25th to address these concerns. However, the phone number listed on the application is incorrect. When I called (406) 270- 8529, a lady answered who said she had no idea who the business Tronstad-Church LLC was, nor who Don Dammel was. Concerningly, she also stated quite a few people have been calling her about this and she is frustrated by that. Meaning that there are people attempting to contact Tronstad-Church LLC about this, and they aren't able to because the application is inaccurate. I am going to contact the Commissioners office about this as well. Please let me know what you plan to do to rectify this to give the public the opportunity to respond to this application. Thank you! Sincerely, Danielle Tuhy Owner and Farmer (406) 249-5438 , kuntcydazy@gmail.com 280 Highland Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 wwwJlatheadfreedomfam, .weebb,.com bn5ni;Uww:wJanbgpk,com/tiyefi:eeott1i;etfff 4 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:35 PM PJ Sorensen EXTERNAL Fwd: FW: Proposed Zone Change from Tronstad-Church LLC On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:13 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, I am writing to give you an opportunity to communicate with the community about your proposed Zone change for your property. Mr. Dammel, you may not remember but my husband actually knows you through participating in a marketing group together when you were the owner of Culligan. His name is Steve Tuhy, and we own the Subway restaurants in the valley among other things. We have since used Culligan for our home, though when we purchased it I believe your son was the owner. We are both concerned about the zone change you propose. We live on Highland Drive, less than a quarter mile from the development you are considering, and off of the potential entrance your developers have marked as an easement. We know Karen Koenig as well, whom you purchased the property from. Both Steve and Karen feel you are a person invested in our community. As such I think you must not be aware of the potential problems this development would cause for people like us living in the neighborhood, and that you probably are not receiving accurate information about community response to this proposal. Your representatives at the meeting strongly stated your desire to involve the community. They implied you are interested in direct contact with concerned community members. However, the application your representatives sent to the county has inaccurate contact information on it. The phone number listed for you and your LLC is (406) 270-8529. I called that number to discuss my concerns, and the lady that answered said that she had no idea who you were or anything about an LLC. In addition, she stated she is getting annoyed because she has been getting so many calls about this over the last few weeks. This makes me think that I am likely not alone in my concerns, and that a multitude of concerned community members have been attempting to contact you about this. As someone looking for community approval, I imagine that will be distressing to learn. At the meeting your representatives stated that you had directly reached out to the neighbors around your proposed development. However, that was a total of 5 neighbors, already living in a development. There are at least 20 other neighbors from that development either directly touching your property, or directly across the street from your property. Then there are the rest of the neighbors that live on Highland, Tronstad, and Whitefish Stage that will be directly impacted by at the very least the traffic from such a drastic increase in population density. Your representatives many times stated that your property is an "island" of farmland in the middle of residential living. That however is also inaccurate. The vast majority of the acreage surrounding your property is farmland, and the majority of properties a re SAG-1 O or SAG-5 properties. Your representatives were not able to answer a concerned neighbor that directly asked why you felt this property needed to be rezoned. I am hoping that you can at the very least answer that for me. Why are 5 acre lots not enough for your development? No matter how beautiful you try to make a development at 2.5 acres, you are still making a development. Developments are not special, and are not unique. What 1 is unique and special about Montana, and especially the Flathead, is our countryside. No one moves here to live in a development. If you truly want to create something beautiful, that represents the unique qualities that are so sought after in our valley right now, you need to respect and preserve the agricultural designations that the community has created. We are well aware of the enormous increase in property values in the area recently. SAG•5 zoning designation should more than allow you to make an enormous amount of money on your investment. There are no community benefits to changing to 2.5 acre parcels, only costs. So in summary, first I want to make sure you are aware that the community is not behind this, and that if you haven't been contacted about it, it's because your contact info is incorrectly listed. Not because the community is supportive. I want to give you the opportunity to rectify that and to actually learn what the community wants as your representatives stated is important to you. Then, I'd like to know from you why you need the re-zoning to occur. Why isn't SAG-5 good enough? I wish I had been able to discuss this with you much sooner, however unfortunately due to the difficulty in contacting you that was impossible. Hopefully this still allows you the time to respond before the Commissioners meet on Thursday. You are also welcome to contact my husband if you are more comfortable. He is extremely well versed in development etc. His phone number is (406) 250-3771, and I am cc-ing him on this email. Thank you for your time. Danielle and Steven Tuhy Owner and Farmer (406) 249-5438 I kuntrydazy@email.com 280 Highland Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 www,flatbtadkgdqmf,lrm,weehlY,PODJ httpa:1/wwwJacebook,comJUyofrtlOtd!etfFF On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 4:30 PM Eric Mulcahy <edc@saodssurveyjng.com> wrote: Don, Below is an email from a nearby property of the zone change. She apparently has some question for you so could you respond back to her or give her a call. Her number is 249-5438 Eric H. Mulcahy, AICP Sands Surveying, Inc (406) 755-6481 2 eric@sandssurveying.com 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuotrydazy@gmaiLc.om> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:07 PM To: e dc@sa n dss urveyi n g.cQID Subject: Re: Proposed Zone Change from Tronstad-Church LLC I am writing in regards to concerns I have about the proposed zone change from Tronstad-Church LLC that will be reviewed on Thursday by the Commissioners. I attended the Zoning Board meeting on this issue, and at that meeting your representatives expressed that Don Dammel and Tronstad-Church LLC are the people that have the answers on the future of this development. They also stated that Don Dammel and Tronstad-Church LLC are invested in communicating with the community about this development. As such, I attempted to contact Don Dammel and Tronstad-Church LLC, using the contact information provided on the Application. Unfortunately, the contact information listed (a phone number of (406) 270-8529) is incorrect as contact information for them. I and others have attempted to contact them through this number, and the lady that answered was frustrated by how many calls she has gotten about this. I contacted the Zoning Board and they said to try contacting you. Due to the runaround I have gotten, time is now of the essence in being able to resolve this. I left a phone message as well, but with the commission meeting days away I wanted to give you every opportunity to right this situation and figured an email might be a better method. Please respond as soon as possible with the correct phone number and/or email for Don Dammel/Tronstad-Church LLC so that as your representative suggested I can contact them with concerns about the proposed zone change for their property. Thank you for your time. Danielle Tuhy 3 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:36 PM PJ Sorensen EXTERNAL Fwd: FW: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nagai image002Jpg [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, 1 :48 PM Randy Brodehl <rbrodehl@flathead.mt.gm1:> wrote: Danielle, Thanks again. In no way should contacting the members of our board be difficult. I would appreciate hearing back from you if this is resolved. If not, I will follow up next week.(l'll be out of town at a conference Thursday through Saturday). rlb Randy Brodehl, Flathead County Commissioner, District 3 800 S. Main St. Kalispell, MT 59901 406. 758.5507 rbrodeht@flathead.mt.gov NOTICE: County Commissioners are publicly elected officials. Commissioner emails sent or received involving county business, may be subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Montana law. As such, email sent or received, its sender and receiver, and the email's contents, may be subject to public disclosure, except as otherwise provided by Montana law. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmait.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 202112:16 PM l To: Randy Brodehl <rbrodehl@flathead,mt,goy> Subject: Re: FW: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nogal Hi Mr. Broehdel, I wanted to clarify since I see you are a Commissioner. On Monday I called the Zoning Board and asked to be put in touch with Sandra Nogal. Mary told me the way to do that is to email the zoning board, and she would forward it to Ms. Nogal. Since then, my email has been sent, among other people like you, to Mark Mussman and to Laura Mooney. I communicated back to them on Monday and Tuesday stating this email is specifically to get in touch with Ms. Nogal, and not them. They both told me they would send it on to Ms. Nogal, as did Mary initially. You can imagine my confusion when instead they sent it to you. I had planned to write to the commissioner's as well, and I will be there tomorrow. However I find the disorganization at the Zoning Board that advises you and the other commissioners very concerning. I believe my email is straightforward, and that it is clearly addressed. As such I am confused on why this is so difficult, and I'm starting to find it difficult to believe that it isn't intentional. Sandra was the only member that opposed this application. It seems strange that they would pass my email to everyone but her. If you have any suggestions for solving this problem I would appreciate it. Obviously I would completely understand if Ms. Nogal is too busy or otherwise occupied to communicate with me, but none of the emails I have received, and none of the phone calls I have made have stated that is the issue. All of them have clearly stated I am following the correct procedure, and assured me they would forward it to Ms. Nogat. Thank you for your time. And I apologize for them involving you in this, as it isn't appropriate. I do however appreciate your response and look forward to meeting you tomorrow. Sincerely, Danielle Tuhy On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, 10:09 AM Randy Brodehl <rbrodehl@flathead.mt.gm!> wrote: Danielle, 2 Thanks for writing to the commissioners. I've read your letter and have taken it under consideration. It is on the agenda 2/25, at 9: 15 AM. rlb Randy Brodehl, Flathead County Commissioner, District 3 800 S. Main St. Kalispell, MT 59901 406. 758.5507 rbrodebl@fla thead .mt.w NOTICE: County Commissioners are publicly elected officials. Commissioner emails sent or received involving county business, may be subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Montana law. As such, email sent or received, its sender and receiver, and the email's contents, may be subject to public disclosure, except as otherwise provided by Montana law. From: Elaine Nelson <enelson@ftathead.mt.goy> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2: 13 PM To: Brad Abell <babeU@flathead.mt.gqy>; Pamela Holmquist <pholmgujst@ftathead.mt.gov>; Randy Brodehl <rbrodehl@flathead.mt.s;ov> Subject: FW: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nogal From: Laura Mooney <lmooney@flathead.mt ,goy> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2:05 PM To: 'kuntrydazy@gmait.com' <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Cc: Elaine Nelson <eoelson@ftathead .mt.gov> Subject: RE: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nogal Hi Danielle, 3 We appreciate your comment and will gladly forward it over to the Commissioner's office. At this time, public comment for the Planning Board is now closed. However, the public hearing for this file is going to be heard by the Commissioners on Thursday, February 25th at 9:15 A.M. and you are more than welcome to attend and speak to them directly. The public hearing will be held in the Commissioners Chambers, Third Floor of the Old Courthouse in Kalispell. If there are any questions I can answer, please contact our office and I'd be happy to help! 7 51-8200. Thank you, Laura Mooney Planner I Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West, Suite 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 406. 7 51.8200 From: Angela Phillips <aphjUjps@flathead.mt.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20211 :43 PM To: Laura Mooney <lmooney@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: FW: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nogal From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Pl annjng,Zoning@flathead.mt.ggv> Subject: Re: Zone Change Application from Tronstad-Church LLC, Attn: Sandra Nogal Dear Ms. Nogal, I heard you speak at the Zoning Public meeting regarding the proposed zone change application from Tronstad-Church LLC. I am attempting to gather information to oppose this application at the Commissioners meeting on Thursday. Do you by any chance have any tips on doing this? A few things I have discovered since the meeting is that despite the representative from Tronstad-Church LLC (I think his name was Mike Meyers of Kalispell) stating they are looking for community involvement, the application itself doesn't even have the correct contact information for the LLC/Don Dammel. The phone number listed belongs to a lady who said she has been getting a bunch of calls about this over the past few weeks, but has no idea who the LLC or Don Dammel are. I contacted the Commissioners office about this, and they said to talk to the Zoning Board about it. I contacted Mark Mussman there and he suggested contacting Sands Surveying. I am waiting to hear back from them, however I am not convinced that will be helpful. I felt that the Sands Surveying representative at the zoning meeting made it very clear that they knew basically nothing about the planned development, and were just in charge of the survey. As requested by the representatives of the LLC and Don Dammel at the zoning meeting, I am attempting to contact them directly with my concerns, but due to the inaccurate application I'm finding it difficult. I am also hoping to go door to door to let neighbors know what is happening, so that they can be represented (however they feel about it honestly). If you have any suggestions or input on what I should do before the commission meeting, or on what I should say at the meeting, I would really appreciate it. Thank you so much for your time and for your passion for our community. Sincerely, Danielle Tuhy Owner and Farmer (406) 249-5438 / kuntrydazy@gmall.com 280 Highland Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 s www fia.tbeodfreedomfarm.weobty,com httna;//www,faeebook comllivefreeordietFFE 6 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Danielle- PJ Sorensen Friday, March 29, 2024 9:42 AM Danielle Tuhy RE: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Sorry that the signature block didn't come through, it was on my sent email-sometimes those blocks go through as an attachment rather than on the email. This is a snip of what I sent so you have the signature block: PJ Sorensen To U kuntrydazy@gmail.com Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the propert county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell C doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone ou1 there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the applic take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. U l'Y~ KALISPELL PJ Sorensen, Esq. Senior Planner Development Services Department 2011" Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 psorensen@kalispell.com As for your other questions, our mailings went out by certified mail on March 20, which meets the notification requirement. In regard to passing on your public comment, that is something that we typically do. We take public comment seriously, and it is part of the record that moves through the process. We provide that to the applicant so that they can respond appropriately to the comments in a timely manner. For example, we have received comments about buffering and the applicant has then been able to engage the public and try to work out a way to buffer portions of the development. The contact information on the form is primarily so that we can contact the applicant, it is not a statutory or regulatory requirement. They provided sufficient contact information for an application. As for a meeting, I'm sure we can set something up. I'll need to be in touch once I figure out some schedules. 1 (.11'\'~ KALISPELL PJ Sorensen, Esq. senior Planner Development Services Department 2011 .. Ave East Kai ispell, MT 59901 (406) 758-7940 ~nsen@kalispell.com From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:08 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello Whomever Emailed Me, What is your name and position? You didn't sign your email. You stated that the legal requirement is notice 15 days before the public hearing. Interestingly, our neighbors within 150ft of the property did not receive notice until yesterday, which is 12 days before the public hearing. And conveniently exactly the amount of days it would take Frank to send those out after I emailed you and alerted you to the fact that the city was proceeding illegally without notifying neighbors. As such I recommend you move the hearing out in order to fulfill your legal requirements, because we will absolutely be holding you to the letter of the law. Our HOA has retained counsel and will ensure it. Frank also stalked me and called my business, so I'm assuming you gave him my name to contact. Is that legal? I have looked at the application per your recommendation and noticed it is missing information. Please have them reapply with all information included. Specifically, contact info for the actual owners of the property. Frank did the same thing 2 years ago and hid the information of the actual owners, which you can see in the emails I forwarded to you. The public deserves access to their email and phone number in order to discuss concerns with them and hiding that information is clearly deceitful and in bad faith. I'm surprised the city is willing to accept an incomplete application. This is also required information 15 days prior to the public hearing. I highly recommend you postpone the hearing until Frank corrects these issues, as we will be looking to bring a lawsuit against anyone participating in pushing this through without proper notice. Our community has learned from believing his lies in the past and will not be giving him any sort of benefit of the doubt going forward. Since you felt the need to contact him and give him my information, you can pass it along to him and anyone involved in the city that they better cross every T and dot ever I because we will be checking every single one. Our community will be sending out our own, individual notifications to every single house on Highland, along Tronstad, along all of the streets connected to Tronstad, and to all of our neighbors within 1-5 miles of Tronstad and Whitefish Stage specifically, as well as to the rest of the community that Frank in no way represents. 2 In the meantime, I would like to schedule an appointment with a city representative to ensure my community and I are fully aware of your requirements for filing petitions as well as for the public hearing. I assume as public officials serving us that will not be an issue. I can make any time and day prior to the hearing work. To sum up: -Move the public hearing back to the legally required amount of days from notification of neighbors within 150ft, and actually inform them of the new hearing by the required date (preferably well before if you have any desire to show good faith). -Require the application by Frank be filled out fully and correctly BEFORE accepting it and scheduling it for public hearing, specifically including the email and phone number of the actual out of state owners of the property -Inform me of who in the city can schedule an appointment to discuss filing a petition against this development in order to accurately represent your constituents. -If necessary, inform me of any requirements the city has of legal representation involvement in these matters. -Inform me of who you are and what your title is for my records. If this does not fall under your jurisdiction, please let me know who I should be contacting. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 4:33 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.cQm> wrote: Years ago when these con men first started creating this project, we were assured we'd be notified of everything based on us being in a cul de sac significantly affected by the traffic caused by this. It should be on record since it was at a county meeting. This included everyone on Highland Drive and Sirucek and Tronstad Lane, because our ability to exit our houses is directly affected by the traffic this project will cause. Many people came to that meeting to protest this when it was at However they have consistently lied to the neighborhoods affected throughout this process so it doesn't surprise me that they are continuing to do so. They also listed inaccurate contact info on the application as a means to avoid dealing with neighbors while simultaneously declaring they desperately wanted community buy in. This was when they rezoned from 5 acres to 2.5. When neighbors attempted to contact the council, we were consistently ignored. They just used random people living nowhere near this development as "neighbors in favor of the project." At the time they also assured their would never be an entrance on Highland Road. I will forward you the emails I have as evidence of the duplicitous actions of these people, in the hopes that as the city you are not aware of the very disputed history of this property. We will also be procuring legal counsel, from Missoula, as we were told that locally the lawyers will be in the developers back pocket, which is very disturbing to hear from local professionals. Hopefully they will be able to attend the meeting on the 9th and advise our community. In addition I will be contacting everyone on Highland and in other surrounding areas that are opposed and encouraging them to contact you and to attend the meeting. Frank has been involved with this from the beginning, and has lied to the community from the beginning about his intentions with this property. I have a friend who's property literally backs to this, and no one 3 was notified when they somehow switched from 2.5acre density to apparently 4 per acre. This whole project has been consistently deceptive. Now that we are aware, thanks to the news outlets and not the county or the city, we will be opposing this project in any way legally possible, just based on the intention to deceive alone. Hopefully this information helps you and the City make more informed decisions than Frank's deception would have allowed so far. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 2:40 PM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kaljspeU.com> wrote: Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -0 4/09/2024 (kalispelLcom) if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. Begin forwarded message: From: April Derbyshire <aderbyshlre@flathead.mt.gov> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kaUspeH.com>, Jarod Nygren <in¥gc~n@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, 4 Aprtb Oerby;ltir~ Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 4011th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. 11, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be 5 available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 6 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:26 PM To: PJ Sorensen Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development In addition, my neighbor Brian Kelly, whose property is literally surrounded by the development, has confirmed he still has not received notification from the city. I understand he emailed you directly and has not heard back. You told me everyone within 150ft of the project was. Similar to when you failed to notify people within 150ft of the Quail Ridge development being annexed. This seems to be a continuing problem for you. What is the consequence for failure to follow your own rules? On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 8:13 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> wrote: I didn't say they wouldn't be. I was advised not to share any extraneous information with you. That said, please send me city code that says that you are not allowed to meet with someone without their attorney or a waiver if they have one, to explain the rules surrounding public hearings. I expect this to be handled by the book, not by your arbitrary preferences. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 5:24 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> wrote: Danielle- Since you are represented by an attorney, they would need to be part of the meeting unless they provide us with a waiver allowing us to meet with you without them being there. But we can't just meet with you without one of those two things. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:10 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Am I required to disclose that in order to schedule this meeting? If not, then I'll handle that side of things. 1 On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1 :04 PM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kalispelt.com> wrote: What does your attorney's schedule look like? From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:02 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] I am available any day this week. On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, 11 :43 AM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kaUspetl.com> wrote: Danielle- We can pull together a meeting this week, but since you are represented by counsel, your attorney should participate as well and the City Attorney will likely be a part of it. What times might be available on your end? From: PJ Sorensen Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 9:42 AM To: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Danielle- 2 Sorry that the signature block didn't come through, it was on my sent email-sometimes those blocks go through as an attachment rather than on the email. This is a snip of what I sent so you have the signature block: As for your other questions. our mailings went out by certified mail on March 20, which meets the notification requirement. In regard to passing on your public comment, that is something that we typically do. We take public comment seriously, and it is part of the record that moves through the process. We provide that to the applicant so that they can respond appropriately to the comments in a timely manner. For example, we have received comments about buffering and the applicant has then been able to engage the public and try to work out a way to buffer portions of the development. The contact information on the form is primarily so that we can contact the applicant, it is not a statutory or regulatory requirement. They provided sufficient contact information for an application. As for a meeting, I'm sure we can set something up. I'll need to be in touch once I figure out some schedules. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazv@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:08 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello Whomever Emailed Me, What is your name and position? You didn't sign your email. You stated that the legal requirement is notice 15 days before the public hearing. Interestingly, our neighbors within 150ft of the property did not receive notice until yesterday, which is 12 days before the public hearing. And conveniently exactly the amount of days it would take Frank to send those out after I emailed you and alerted you to the fact that the city was proceeding illegally without notifying neighbors. As such I recommend you move the hearing out in order to fulfill your legal requirements, because we will absolutely be holding you to the letter of the law. Our HOA has retained counsel and will ensure it. Frank also stalked me and called my business, so I'm assuming you gave him my name to contact. Is that legal? I have looked at the application per your recommendation and noticed it is missing information. Please have them reapply with all information included. Specifically, contact info for the actual owners of the property. Frank did the same thing 2 years ago and hid the information of the actual owners, which you can see in the emails I forwarded to you. The public deserves access to 3 their email and phone number in order to discuss concerns with them and hiding that information is clearly deceitful and in bad faith. I'm surprised the city is willing to accept an incomplete application. This is also required information 15 days prior to the public hearing. I highly recommend you postpone the hearing until Frank corrects these issues, as we will be looking to bring a lawsuit against anyone participating in pushing this through without proper notice. Our community has learned from believing his lies in the past and will not be giving him any sort of benefit of the doubt going forward. Since you felt the need to contact him and give him my information, you can pass it along to him and anyone involved in the city that they better cross everyT and dot ever I because we will be checking every single one. Our community will be sending out our own, individual notifications to every single house on Highland, along Tronstad, along all of the streets connected to Tronstad, and to all of our neighbors within 1-5 miles of Tronstad and Whitefish Stage specifically, as well as to the rest of the community that Frank in no way represents. In the meantime, I would like to schedule an appointment with a city representative to ensure my community and I are fully aware of your requirements for filing petitions as well as for the public hearing. I assume as public officials serving us that will not be an issue. I can make anytime and day prior to the hearing work. To sum up: -Move the public hearing back to the legally required amount of days from notification of neighbors within 150ft, and actually inform them of the new hearing by the required date (preferably well before if you have any desire to show good faith). -Require the application by Frank be filled out fully and correctly BEFORE accepting it and scheduling it for public hearing, specifically including the email and phone number of the actual out of state owners of the property -Inform me of who in the city can schedule an appointment to discuss filing a petition against this development in order to accurately represent your constituents. -If necessary, inform me of any requirements the city has of legal representation involvement in these matters. -Inform me of who you are and what your title is for my records. 4 If this does not fall under your jurisdiction, please let me know who I should be contacting. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 4:33 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> wrote: Years ago when these con men first started creating this project, we were assured we'd be notified of everything based on us being in a cul de sac significantly affected by the traffic caused by this. It should be on record since it was at a county meeting. This included everyone on Highland Drive and Sirucek and Tronstad Lane, because our ability to exit our houses is directly affected by the traffic this project will cause. Many people came to that meeting to protest this when it was at However they have consistently lied to the neighborhoods affected throughout this process so it doesn't surprise me that they are continuing to do so. They also listed inaccurate contact info on the application as a means to avoid dealing with neighbors while simultaneously declaring they desperately wanted community buy in. This was when they rezoned from 5 acres to 2.5. When neighbors attempted to contact the council, we were consistently ignored. They just used random people living nowhere near this development as "neighbors in favor of the project." At the time they also assured their would never be an entrance on Highland Road. I will forward you the emails I have as evidence of the duplicitous actions of these people, in the hopes that as the city you are not aware of the very disputed history of this property. We will also be procuring legal counsel, from Missoula, as we were told that locally the lawyers will be in the developers back pocket, which is very disturbing to hear from local professionals. Hopefully they will be able to attend the meeting on the 9th and advise our community. In addition I will be contacting everyone on Highland and in other surrounding areas that are opposed and encouraging them to contact you and to attend the meeting. Frank has been involved with this from the beginning, and has lied to the community from the beginning about his intentions with this property. I have a friend who's property literally backs to this, and no one was notified when they somehow switched from 2.5acre density to apparently 4 per acre. This whole project has been consistently deceptive. Now that we are aware, thanks to the news outlets and not the county or the city, we will be opposing this project in any way legally possible, just based on the intention to deceive alone. s I I Hopefully this information helps you and the City make more informed decisions than Frank's deception would have allowed so far. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 2:40 PM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kaUspelt..com> wrote: Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -04/09/2024 (kalispelLcom) if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. Begin forwarded message: From: April Derbyshire <aderbyshire@flathead,mt.gov> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <krobjnsoo@k.aliSAell,com>, Jarod Nygren <j.nygren@katispelt.com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, 6 Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 40 11th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8200 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. 11, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, 7 and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 8 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11 :37 AM PJ Sorensen; Johnna Preble; Kari Barnhart; Katharine King Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development image001.png [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Which matter? That you didn't notify a homeowner within 150ft of the development (literally surrounded by the development) 15 days prior to the meeting, but put in writing in these emails that you did? That this isn't the first time you've done this? Or that you are refusing to meet with a citizen to go over the expectations for participation in the public hearing, and refusing to share what part of city policy or code requires my counsel to be present in order to discuss that? I am not going to bother my attorney with this petty back and forth. Due to the lack of notification, they have plenty to handle prior to the meeting April 9th, and that is where their focus will be. Not on dealing with you. You are welcome to involve your counsel in whatever petty things you want to. Unless you show me evidence that this is legally required, you are just refusing to meet with a citizen to discuss expectations at a public hearing. Your lawyer is included in this email in case you've failed to mention this to them and are just bluffing to attempt not to meet. Either of you are welcome to show me where in your policies my counsel is required to facilitate this meeting. We are not on a first name basis. Please stop using mine. Sincerely, Mrs. Tuhy On Wed, Apr 3, 2024, 11 :20 AM PJ Sorensen <psorenseo@kalisAelLtQrn> wrote: Danielle- Please have your attorney contact the City Attorney to discuss the matter. 1 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:14 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development (NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] I didn't say they wouldn't be. I was advised not to share any extraneous information with you. That said, please send me city code that says that you are not allowed to meet with someone without their attorney or a waiver if they have one, to explain the rules surrounding public hearings. I expect this to be handled by the book, not by your arbitrary preferences. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 5:24 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kaljsgell.com> wrote: Danielle- Since you are represented by an attorney, they would need to be part of the meeting unless they provide us with a waiver allowing us to meet with you without them being there. But we can't just meet with you without one of those two things. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 20241:10 PM 2 To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Am I required to disclose that in order to schedule this meeting? If not, then I'll handle that side of things. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1 :04 PM PJ Sorensen <ps_orensen@kaUspell.com> wrote: What does your attorney's schedule look like? From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:02 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] I am available any day this week. On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, 11 :43 AM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> wrote: Danielle- We can pull together a meeting this week, but since you are represented by counsel, your attorney should participate as well and the City Attorney will likely be a part of it. What times might be available on your end? 3 From: P J Sorensen Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 9:42 AM To: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrvdazy@gmail.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Danielle- Sorry that the signature block didn't come through, it was on my sent email-sometimes those blocks go through as an attachment rather than on the email. This is a snip of what I sent so you have the signature block: As for your other questions, our mailings went out by certified mail on March 20, which meets the notification requirement. In regard to passing on your public comment, that is something that we typically do. We take public comment seriously, and it is part of the record that moves through the process. We provide that to the applicant so that they can respond appropriately to the comments in a timely manner. For example, we have received comments about buffering and the applicant has then been able to engage the public and try to work out a way to buffer portions of the development. The contact information on the form is primarily so that we can contact the applicant, it is not a statutory or regulatory requirement. They provided sufficient contact information for an application. As for a meeting, I'm sure we can set something up. I'll need to be in touch once I figure out some schedules. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:08 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispeU.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello Whomever Emailed Me, What is your name and position? You didn't sign your email. You stated that the legal requirement is notice 15 days before the public hearing. Interestingly, our neighbors within 150ft of the property did not receive notice until yesterday, which is 12 days before the public hearing. And conveniently exactly the amount of days it would take Frank to send those out after I emailed you and alerted you to the fact that the city was proceeding illegally without notifying neighbors. As such I recommend you move the hearing out in order to fulfill your legal requirements, because we will absolutely be holding you to the letter of the law. Our HOA has retained counsel and will ensure it. 11 11 Frank also stalked me and called my business, so I'm assuming you gave him my name to contact. Is that legal? I have looked at the application per your recommendation and noticed it is missing information. Please have them reapply with all information included. Specifically, contact info for the actual owners of the property. Frank did the same thing 2 years ago and hid the information of the actual owners, which you can see in the emails I forwarded to you. The public deserves access to their email and phone number in order to discuss concerns with them and hiding that information is clearly deceitful and in bad faith. I'm surprised the city is willing to accept an incomplete application. This is also required information 15 days prior to the public hearing. I highly recommend you postpone the hearing until Frank corrects these issues, as we will be looking to bring a lawsuit against anyone participating in pushing this through without proper notice. Our community has learned from believing his lies in the past and will not be giving him any sort of benefit of the doubt going forward. Since you felt the need to contact him and give him my information, you can pass it along to him and anyone involved in the city that they better cross every T and dot ever I because we will be checking every single one. Our community will be sending out our own, individual notifications to every single house on Highland, along Tronstad, along all of the streets connected to Tronstad, and to all of our neighbors within 1-5 miles of Tronstad and Whitefish Stage specifically, as well as to the rest of the community that Frank in no way represents. In the meantime, 1 would like to schedule an appointment with a city representative to ensure my community and I are fully aware of your requirements for filing petitions as welt as for the public hearing. I assume as public officials serving us that will not be an issue. I can make any time and day prior to the hearing work. To sum up: -Move the public hearing back to the legally required amount of days from notification of neighbors within 150ft, and actually inform them of the new hearing by the required date (preferably well before if you have any desire to show good faith). I 11 -Require the application by Frank be filled out fully and correctly BEFORE accepting it and scheduling it for public hearing, specifically including the email and phone number of the actual out of state owners of the property s -Inform me of who in the city can schedule an appointment to discuss filing a petition against this development in order to accurately represent your constituents. -If necessary, inform me of any requirements the city has of legal representation involvement in these matters. -Inform me of who you are and what your title is for my records. If this does not fall under your jurisdiction, please let me know who I should be contacting. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 4:33 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydaz:y@gmaj l.com> wrote: Years ago when these con men first started creating this project, we were assured we'd be notified of everything based on us being in a cul de sac significantly affected by the traffic caused by this. It should be on record since it was at a county meeting. This included everyone on Highland Drive and Sirucek and Tronstad Lane, because our ability to exit our houses is directly affected by the traffic this project will cause. Many people came to that meeting to protest this when it was at However they have consistently lied to the neighborhoods affected throughout this process so it doesn't surprise me that they are continuing to do so. They also listed inaccurate contact info on the application as a means to avoid dealing with neighbors while simultaneously declaring they desperately wanted community buy in. This was when they rezoned from 5 acres to 2.5. When neighbors attempted to contact the council, we were consistently ignored. They just used random people living nowhere near this development as "neighbors in favor of the project." At the time they also assured their would never be an entrance on Highland Road. I will forward you the emails I have as evidence of the duplicitous actions of these people, in the hopes that as the city you are not aware of the very disputed history of this property. We will also be procuring legal counsel, from Missoula, as we were told that locally the lawyers will be in the developers back pocket, which is very disturbing to hear from local professionals. Hopefully they will be able to attend the meeting on the 9th and advise our community. In addition I will be contacting everyone on Highland and in other surrounding areas that are opposed and encouraging them to contact you and to attend the meeting. 6 Frank has been involved with this from the beginning, and has lied to the community from the beginning about his intentions with this property. I have a friend who's property literally backs to this, and no one was notified when they somehow switched from 2.Sacre density to apparently 4 per acre. This whole project has been consistently deceptive. Now that we are aware, thanks to the news outlets and not the county or the city, we will be opposing this project in any way legally possible, just based on the intention to deceive alone. Hopefully this information helps you and the City make more informed decisions than Frank's deception would have allowed so far. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 2:40 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kaUspell.com> wrote: Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -04/09/2024 (kaUspelLcom) if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. Begin forwarded message: From: April Derbyshire <~@ft~> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kalisp,etLcom>, Jarod Nygren <jnygren@katispelLcom> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development 7 Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, AprwDerbyJhire- Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 4011th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy 8 Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. 11, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 9 PJ Sorensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Johnna Preble Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:58 PM Danielle Tuhy; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart; Katharine King RE: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Good afternoon, Mrs. Tuhy. My name is Johnna Preble and I'm the City Attorney. I advised PJ to have your counsel contact me as you are questioning City staffs adherence to the law on notification. As an attorney, it's my ethical obligation to only speak to an attorney when a party is represented unless their attorney waives that requirement. You've indicated that you are represented. As such, I would be happy to speak to your attorney. Thank you. Johnna Preble City Attorney City of Kalispell 2011st Ave. E. Kalispell, MT 59901 406-758-7709 ,._ .... KALISPELL From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:37 AM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Johnna Preble <jpreble@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>; Katharine King <kking@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development (NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Which matter? That you didn't notify a homeowner within 150ft of the development (literally surrounded by the development) 15 days prior to the meeting, but put in writing in these emails that you did? That this isn't the first time you've done this? Or that you are refusing to meet with a citizen to go over the expectations for participation in the public hearing, and refusing to share what part of city policy or code requires my counsel to be present in order to discuss that? I am not going to bother my attorney with this petty back and forth. Due to the lack of notification, they have plenty to handle prior to the meeting April 9th, and that is where their focus will be. Not on dealing with you. You are welcome to involve your counsel in whatever petty things you want to. Unless you show me evidence that this is legally required, you are just refusing to meet with a citizen to discuss expectations at a public hearing. 1 Your lawyer is included in this email in case you've failed to mention this to them and are just bluffing to attempt not to meet. Either of you are welcome to show me where in your policies my counsel is required to facilitate this meeting. We are not on a first name basis. Please stop using mine. Sincerely, Mrs. Tuhy On Wed, Apr 3, 2024, 11 :20 AM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kalispelLcom> wrote: Danielle- Please have your attorney contact the City Attorney to discuss the matter. From: Danielle Tuhy <kunta dazy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:14 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kaUspelS.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development (NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.) I didn't say they wouldn't be. I was advised not to share any extraneous information with you. That said, please send me city code that says that you are not allowed to meet with someone without their attorney or a waiver if they have one, to explain the rules surrounding public hearings. I expect this to be handled by the book, not by your arbitrary preferences. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 5:24 PM PJ Sorensen <psocensen@kaUspell.com> wrote: 2 Danielle- Since you are represented by an attorney, they would need to be part of the meeting unless they provide us with a waiver allowing us to meet with you without them being there. But we can't just meet with you without one of those two things. From: Danielle Tuhy <k_untrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:10 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.) Am I required to disclose that in order to schedule this meeting? If not, then I'll handle that side of things. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1 :04 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> wrote: What does your attorney's schedule look like? From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:02 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] I am available any day this week. 3 On Mon, Apr 1, 2024, 11 :43 AM P J Sorensen <psorensen@kaljspeU.com> wrote: Danielle- We can pull together a meeting this week, but since you are represented by counsel, your attorney should participate as well and the City Attorney will likely be a part of it. What times might be available on your end? From: PJ Sorensen Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 9:42 AM To: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Danielle- Sorry that the signature block didn't come through, it was on my sent email-sometimes those blocks go through as an attachment rather than on the email. This is a snip of what I sent so you have the signature block: As for your other questions, our mailings went out by certified mail on March 20, which meets the notification requirement. In regard to passing on your public comment, that is something that we typically do. We take public comment seriously, and it is part of the record that moves through the process. We provide that to the applicant so that they can respond appropriately to the comments in a timely manner. For example, we have received comments about buffering and the applicant has then been able to engage the public and try to work out a way to buffer portions of the development. The contact information on the form is primarily so that we can contact the applicant, it is not a statutory or regulatory requirement. They provided sufficient contact information for an application. As for a meeting, I'm sure we can set something up. I'll need to be in touch once I figure out some schedules. From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:08 PM To: PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: Tronstad and Whitetail Development 4 Hello Whomever Emailed Me, What is your name and position? You didn't sign your email. You stated that the legal requirement is notice 15 days before the public hearing. Interestingly, our neighbors within 150ft of the property did not receive notice until yesterday, which is 12 days before the public hearing. And conveniently exactly the amount of days it would take Frank to send those out after I emailed you and alerted you to the fact that the city was proceeding illegally without notifying neighbors. As such I recommend you move the hearing out in order to fulfill your legal requirements, because we will absolutely be holding you to the letter of the law. Our HOA has retained counsel and will ensure it. Frank also stalked me and called my business, so I'm assuming you gave him my name to contact. Is that legal? I have looked at the application per your recommendation and noticed it is missing information. Please have them reapply with all information included. Specifically, contact info for the actual owners of the property. Frank did the same thing 2 years ago and hid the information of the actual owners, which you can see in the emails I forwarded to you. The public deserves access to their email and phone number in order to discuss concerns with them and hiding that information is clearly deceitful and in bad faith. I'm surprised the city is willing to accept an incomplete application. This is also required information 15 days prior to the public hearing. I highly recommend you postpone the hearing until Frank corrects these issues, as we will be looking to bring a lawsuit against anyone participating in pushing this through without proper notice. Our community has learned from believing his lies in the past and will not be giving him any sort of benefit of the doubt going forward. Since you felt the need to contact him and give him my information, you can pass it along to him and anyone involved in the city that they better cross every T and dot ever I because we will be checking every single one. Our community will be sending out our own, individual notifications to every single house on Highland, along Tronstad, along all of the streets connected to Tronstad, and to all of our neighbors within 1-5 miles of Tronstad and Whitefish Stage specifically, as well as to the rest of the community that Frank in no way represents. In the meantime, I would like to schedule an appointment with a city representative to ensure my community and I are fully aware of your requirements for filing petitions as well as for the public s hearing. I assume as public officials serving us that will not be an issue. I can make any time and day prior to the hearing work. To sum up: -Move the public hearing back to the legally required amount of days from notification of neighbors within 150ft, and actually inform them of the new hearing by the required date (preferably well before if you have any desire to show good faith). -Require the application by Frank be filled out fully and correctly BEFORE accepting it and scheduling it for public hearing, specifically including the email and phone number of the actual out of state owners of the property -Inform me of who in the city can schedule an appointment to discuss filing a petition against this development in order to accurately represent your constituents. -If necessary, inform me of any requirements the city has of legal representation involvement in these matters. ~ Inform me of who you are and what your title is for my records. If this does not fall under your jurisdiction, please let me know who I should be contacting. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 4:33 PM Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gma jl.com> wrote: Years ago when these con men first started creating this project, we were assured we'd be notified of everything based on us being in a cul de sac significantly affected by the traffic caused by this. It should be on record since it was at a county meeting. This included everyone on Highland Drive and Sirucek and Tronstad Lane, because our ability to exit our houses is directly affected by the traffic this project will cause. Many people came to that meeting to protest this when it was at However they have consistently lied to the neighborhoods affected throughout this process so it doesn't surprise me that they are continuing to do so. They also listed inaccurate contact info on the application as a means to avoid dealing with neighbors while simultaneously declaring they desperately wanted community buy in. This was when they rezoned from 5 acres to 2.5. When neighbors attempted to contact the council, we were consistently ignored. They just used random people living nowhere near this development as "neighbors in favor of the project." At the time they also assured their would never be an entrance on Highland Road. I will forward you the emails I have as evidence of the duplicitous actions of 6 I I these people, in the hopes that as the city you are not aware of the very disputed history of this property. We will also be procuring legal counsel, from Missoula, as we were told that locally the lawyers will be in the developers back pocket, which is very disturbing to hear from local professionals. Hopefully they will be able to attend the meeting on the 9th and advise our community. In addition I will be contacting everyone on Highland and in other surrounding areas that are opposed and encouraging them to contact you and to attend the meeting. Frank has been involved with this from the beginning, and has lied to the community from the beginning about his intentions with this property. I have a friend who's property literally backs to this, and no one was notified when they somehow switched from 2.5acre density to apparently 4 per acre. Th is whole project has been consistently deceptive. Now that we are aware, thanks to the news outlets and not the county or the city, we will be opposing this project in any way legally possible, just based on the intention to deceive alone. Hopefully this information helps you and the City make more informed decisions than Frank's deception would have allowed so far. -Mrs. Tuhy On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 2:40 PM PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispelt.com> wrote: Danielle- The County forwarded your comments to us. The developers applied to annex the property into the City a few weeks ago, so it is being processed as a city project rather than as a county project. The main reason they want to annex is to connect to city water and sewer. When projects come in, there is a notice that goes out to property owners with 150 feet of the project 15 days prior to the public hearing, which is April 9, 6:00 pm here at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave E. The notice distance and time frame is what the law requires. It doesn't look like you are within that distance, so a specific notice would not have gone out to you, although you are certainly welcome to come to the hearing and comment either there or submit your comments in writing prior to the meeting. We have posted the application materials on our website at Agenda -04/09/2024 (kaljspell.com) if you would like to take a look. Please let us know if you have any questions. 7 Begin forwarded message: From: April Derbyshire <aderbyshjre@flatbead.mt.gov> Date: March 26, 2024 at 7:57:36 AM MDT To: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kalispell.com>, Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kali spell, com> Subject: EXTERNAL FW: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Please see below a public comment received by our office. Thank you, April-VerbyJ/url;/ Board Secretary Flathead County Planning & Zoning 4011th Street West, Ste 220 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406} 751-8200 From: Danielle Tuhy <kuntrydazy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:51 PM To: Planning.Zoning <Planning.Zoning@flathead.mt.gov> Subject: Tronstad and Whitetail Development Hello, 8 As a resident on Highland Drive, I am furious to learn of the development proposal through the news media. This development affects our neighborhood directly and years ago this department was clearly working with Sand Surveyers and the developers to decieve residents already living in this area. Please send me any and all info on this development and when there will be public meetings regarding it. The news reported there will be a meeting April 9th on it, but I do not see anything on your website regarding this. Believe me that I, and my neighbors, will aggressively be looking for any mismanagement, in order to stop this development. We have yet to be informed of any of this, and this email is to create a paper trail showing evidence of bad faith and deceiptful intent. Ignore at your own risk. -Danielle Tuhy Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. 11, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 9 I _..__ --- ------~----- ----- City of Kalispell Development Services 2011st Avenue East Kalispell, Mt 59901 Attention: City Planning Commission April 3, 2024 This letter is in response to the notice we received regarding the public hearing scheduled for April 9th, 2024 for File #KA-24-02 and File# KGPA-24-03; KPP24-01. We are writing in regards to the latter, Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing proposed developments. In February of 2021 a zoning meeting was held to change zoning to R-2.5 rural residential for future development. Although the surrounding residents opposed such a change, our concerns were dismissed and the zoning changed to accommodate future development. Now we are looking at a proposal for 381 units on 100 acres and you are wanting input. If my math serves me correctly, that is not one unit per 2.5 acres. First question is when did the zoning change? Our concerns are no different than in 2021: *Traffic -increased in every direction *Water -contamination and reduction in static water levels *Schools -impact will be significant with more demand for transportation *Law enforcement and fire protection As planning board members, we know that you know the goals and policies in place for protecting local homeowners and residential areas. We understand there is a detailed proposal (260 pages) for your consideration that covers many of those goals and policies. As a bordering resident to the proposed development with 381 homes, we simply cannot support such a proposal. While we know you will consider the proposed development, it is our hope that you will take a reasonable look at the numbers, population, infrastructure, and general impact to our area. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~L~~✓ _ . :Yr.,~Jf?u~ .. vi. ~ Joseph E. -Malingo Linda J. Malingo 230 Highland Drive Kalispell, MT From:Michelle Weinberg To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Public Comment: KGPA-24-01, KA-24-03, KPP-24-01 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Date:Friday, April 5, 2024 4:34:00 PM Attachments:KGPA-24-01. KA-24-03. KPP-24-01.Muller.KCPC Public Comment.4.5.24.pdf [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello, Please find a public comment attached for the KGPA-24-01, KA-24-03, KPP-24-01 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Public Hearing. Thank You, Michelle Weinberg Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1417, Missoula, MT 59806 (406) 314-3583 michelle@michelleweinberglaw.com April 4, 2024 Sent via E-Mail Kalispell City Planning Commission 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 planning@kalispell.com Re: #KGPA-24-01; KA-24-03; KPP-24-01: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Applications To: Kalispell City Planning Commission This firm represents Sandy and Jeff Muller in the above referenced matter and submits this letter in opposition to: (1) a growth policy amendment extending the city annexation boundary to encompass this property; (2) annexation; (3) initial zoning of R-3 (Residential); and (4) preliminary plat approval for 380 lots on approximately 110.5 acres, including lots, roads, and common areas. The subject property is located on Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road. My clients are joined by Brandon & Tammi Thornburg, Mary & Tony Sisneros, Guy Foy, Larry Meilhargey, Rocky Williams, Kristen Grahn, Ming & Dr. Dan Munzing, Roger & Sarah Boulch. Brian Kelly. Brenda & Thomas Oberlitner, and Danielle & Steve Tuhy in their opposition to the above referenced matter. Please note that this letter only contains my clients’ initial concerns in opposition to the application and they will supplement the record during the review process with additional public comments. First, the Growth Policy cannot be amended as requested by the applicant because the requested amendment would be inconsistent with the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map, which designates the subject property as Suburban Residential and beyond the City’s annexation policy’s Annexation/Urban Growth Boundary Map. The Montana Supreme Court has rejected similar attempts to adopt inconsistent amendments to a growth policy. In Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson Cnty., 283 Mont. 486 (1997), the Court explained why such piecemeal amendments are both unlawful and untenable from a public policy perspective: Page 2 Moreover, as discussed above, a master plan is a plan for the entire jurisdictional area. See § 76-1-601, MCA. While § 76-1-604, MCA, authorizes revision of a master plan, nothing in that statute supports the notion that revisions can be made which alter the master plan's inherent jurisdiction-wide nature and result in a patchwork plan for the jurisdictional area. Indeed, "if the plan can be amended piecemeal, . . . the role of the plan as a comprehensive statement of community planning policies may be diluted and the planning process may be abused." Daniel R. Mandelker,1 The Role of the Local Comprehensive Plan in Land Use Regulation, 74 MICH. L. REV. 899, 946 (1976). Ash Grove, 283 Mont. at 499. Therefore, because the requested amendment to extend the City’s Annexation Boundary would be both an unlawful piecemeal attempt to undercut the Growth Policy and its prevailing vision for the community, my clients request that the Commission recommend denial of the request. In this regard, it is also worth noting that while the Staff Report recommends approval based on the provision of housing contained in Growth Policy “for all sectors and income levels in the community,” this development will not provide affordable housing in the City. According to the applicant, as explained in a recent meeting with community members, the price point for the “affordable housing” in this development would be between $550,000 - $650,000. However, according to the Flathead Valley Housing Market Analysis performed by the University of Montana in February of 2023,2 page 13, such housing prices are not considered affordable for most households in Flathead County: In Flathead County, a typical new home might be represented by a single story, 3- bedroom, 1600 square foot home with attached garage. At current materials and labor costs, the price for such a home in a desirable location, including excavation, land, landscaping and all permits and fees would be approximately $550,000. Assuming a 7 percent interest rate and a 20 percent down payment, a household would have to earn about $100,000 to qualify for a conventional mortgage. With median household income for Flathead County estimated at $63,582, there are clearly many households who could not afford this typical home. Therefore, approval of the applications based on the hollow promise of “affordable housing” would be unlawful because no such housing would materialize. 1 Professor Daniel R. Mandelker is a preeminent scholar of land use law. https://law.wustl.edu/faculty- staff-directory/profile/daniel-r-mandelker/ 2 https://www.kalispell.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/603?fileID=6825 Page 3 Second, because there are numerous public health and safety concerns associated with the proposed development, the applicant’s request for a zone change and preliminary plat are likewise deficient. Pursuant to the zoning review criteria of §76-3-304, MCA: (1) Zoning regulations must be: (a) made in accordance with a growth policy; and (b) designed to: (i) secure safety from fire and other dangers; (ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and (iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Additionally, under §76-3-608, MCA, s subdivision proposal must undergo review for the “impact on agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety, excluding any consideration of whether the proposed subdivision will result in a loss of agricultural soils.” Because there are numerous concerns associated with the proposed development that fail to meet the zoning and subdivision review criteria such that an approval would be unlawful, the applications must be denied. According to Rick Nys, P.E., a Principal Traffic Engineer retained by my clients, the traffic volumes associated with the development would far exceed the maximum vehicle trips per day threshold on Tronstad Road. Under existing conditions -- which are already unsafe -- Tronstad Road carries approximately 1300 vehicle per day (VPD). The development will generate almost 3600 vehicles per day, which far exceeds the threshold volume for a local road. Additionally, Mr. Nys has conducted an initial review of the application materials and has found the following omissions and errors precluding approval of the applications: • The traffic study fails to include any crash data. • The traffic counts at Highway 93/Tronstad are more than two years old and it unclear whether they have been adjusted to present year volumes. The traffic model says the existing year volumes are 2023, but the counts are from 2022. • Traffic counts are typically based on two hour traffic counts and then the highest hour within the two hours is selected as the analysis period. The traffic study relied on AM traffic counts of just a one hour period and 1 hour and 15 minutes in the PM. It appears that the traffic counts may not have been collected during the peak hour as some of the traffic volumes are at or near the peak during the beginning or end of the short count periods. Page 4 • There is no information about the timing of the four phases of development. The city requirements call for an analysis of "opening year plus 5 and 10 years into the future (phasing of the development must also be considered)" presumably meaning that five and ten years after each phase or maybe five and ten years after final phase need to be analyzed. The traffic study relies upon an opening year of 2026 and then analyzes 2031 and 2036. • The traffic signal warrant analysis provides only one scenario based on the full trip generation of the entire development. The application illustrates that the traffic signal will be constructed as part of phase 1. There is no projected timing for the other phases. The applicant should be required to analyze based on the proposed timing of the traffic signal and illustrate that the intersection functions adequately until the traffic signal is installed. • The traffic study provides only one future year lane configuration for Highway 93/Tronstad which includes a traffic signal, northbound right turn lane and separated left and through/right lanes. It is unclear that the developer includes the construction of the additional lanes and whether all will be constructed given the conflicting language of the traffic study and application. It is unclear if the developer proposes to construct these improvements, but there has been no future year analysis without them in place so there is no way to know how the intersection will operate without those. There is no conceptual design for these improvements to establish if they are feasible. • The traffic study provides no analysis of any other alternative than a traffic signal, northbound right turn lane and westbound left, through/right lanes at Highway 93/Tronstad.? Without preliminary approval by MDT, it would not be timely to approve this application. • The traffic study fails to provide evidence of the traffic volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analysis nor specifics of their derivation. • The traffic study refers to both 380 units and 420 units. • The text of the traffic study said the traffic counts should be adjusted by 12% to account for seasonal variation but based on the appendix it appears that the traffic volumes were adjusted by just 6%. There is no evidence that supports the use of a 12 or 6% seasonal adjustment factor. • The traffic study doesn't appropriately adjust per peak hour factors or heavy vehicle percentages. Finally, given the recent water contamination issues recently revealed in the City,3 the proposed transition of the existing agricultural well to a municipal well as proposed by the development is of great concern and would, at the very least, require the environmental assessment and the staff report to address the potential for contamination of nearby private wells given the City’s desire to use the well on the subject property to contribute to the City’s water supply. 3 Flathead Beacon, Kalispell Officials Work Toward Solutions Following “Forever Chemical” Detection in Wells (March 9, 2024). Page 5 Because the environmental assessment and the staff report fail to do so, the applications must be denied. For these reasons, my clients respectfully request the Commission recommend denial of the above reference applications. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, /s/ Michelle T. Weinberg MICHELLE T. WEINBERG, PLLC Attorney for Sandy and Jeff Muller From:elkhorn To:Kirstin Robinson; elkhorn Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Sunday, April 7, 2024 9:10:56 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to express my opposition to Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing subdivisions. The increased traffic from this project will create major safety issue’s for Driver’s, bicyclists and pedestrian’s. Tronstad road, Whitefish stage road and Highland drive were not constructed for heavy traffic use. Tronstad Road and Whitefish stage road were constructed with little to no shoulders and deep ditch’s. Highland drive is a Dead end dusty gravel road with a very challenging access to highway 93 because of a limited site distance to traffic traveling south on highway 93. There should be no access to Highland drive from this proposed Subdivision. We were told at the developers meeting on April 4 that the homes in this subdivision would be selling for $550,000 to $600,000. That’s not affordable housing. I urge you to disapprove the proposed Rezoning and reject the annexation for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. Thank you for your service and support of our communities. Best regards, Jamie Gronley From:Lithgow To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL New development Date:Sunday, April 7, 2024 6:35:19 PM Who in their right mind would allow a developer pull off this scenario out on Trondstad road, no plan to pay any impact fees cause they feel its up to the state and county, which means the established taxpayers….this is beyond normal thinking. The schools are overcrowded, the sewer plant is most likely maxed out, law enforcement is stretched so thin it’s illegal, yet these people are going to layit back to the public to pay the bills they accrue….this is stupidity at its finest….and they haven’t even addressed the traffic situation. If its true that I’ve been told these local guys can’t even set a date for a meeting or other minor decisions, it tells me this is out of state money and these local mouth pieces are just that , a front….has the term responsibility come into anyone’s train of thought about this, I think not. See you at the meeting… Mike Lithgow Sent from my iPad From:Danielle Tuhy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows Development Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 11:49:59 AM Hello, Please read my comment into the minute verbatim. I would like the city to show evidence that lots meant for houses $550,000 and up are indemand. Silverbrook across the highway has comparable pricing and didn't even fill their development at the height of the housing boom. I saw PJ Sorenson quoted as saying that thecity believes more developments were needed based on the amount of development requests the city gets. That makes zero logical sense - development requests do not indicate housingneeds, just developers desires to make money. Actual housing needs would be based on the amount of people looking for housing, and would have to be determined specifically by pricepoints. I'm interested in the city sharing the evidence they've collected to determine that houses specifically at the price points the developers expect $550,000 and most above$650,000) are in need in the valley. In addition, at the developers meeting this past Thursday, they consistently answered infrastructure concerns (traffic, snow removal, impacting already high teacher/student ratios,etc) by saying it will be the city and/or state's job to choose whether or not to handle those issues, and then the tax payers job to handle it. Considering the city is already having torandomly assess extra taxes on property owners, how is the city planning to afford to pay for the infrastructure necessitated by this development? If it's the tax payers, have all theresidents that will pay for this been notified of the expected tax increase so that they can decide if they want to pay for this? This is in addition to many other concerns. Again, please read verbatim into record. Sincerely,Danielle Tuhy From:Trey Green To:Kirstin Robinson; psorenson@kalispell.com Subject:EXTERNAL Proposed Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 4:59:34 PM To the Kalispell City Council Planning Commission: I ask that this letter be read verbatim for the record at your next meeting and not summarized. I have several concerns regarding this development that would no doubt interfere with the quality of life and safety of the current residents surrounding the proposed area. These include and are not limited to: Improper infrastructure - The streets surrounding this development are insufficient for the amount of traffic this development will create. Light Pollution - Which could potentially lead to lawsuits being filed by those affected since light pollution is illegal based on common law nuisance grounds. . Public Safety - The blind turn at Tronstad and Whitefish stage along with the blind curve on Highland Drive. Those examples combined with the exponential increase in traffic attempting travel southbound on Highway 93 from Highland drive creates a huge pubic safety issue. A traffic light at Highway 93 and Highland Drive would surely have to happen. The Water Table - Surrounding homes that are on well water depend on the water aquifer this development is proposing to use. Substantial pressure on the aquifer will no doubt lower the water table and potentially create an incredible financial burden o surrounding families that may need a new well due to aquifer water levels. Dust control on Highland Drive - If this development creates an entrance/exit onto Highland Drive then Highland Drive must be curbed and paved with sidewalks. I ask that this development be tabled for further evaluation and public discourse based on these few examples listed. Sincerely, Trey and Cheryl Green From:406 Haylady To:Kirstin Robinson; Sarah Schwarz; planning.zoning@flathead.mt.gov; psorenson@kalispell.com Subject:EXTERNAL Objections to the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development requested Growth Policy Amendment, City Annexation, Re-Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Approval Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 11:08:24 PM Importance:High To Whom It May Concern: We, Nick & Sarah Schwarz of 2875 Whitefish Stage, Kalispell, MT 59901 vehemently oppose the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development as proposed including their applications to change the Growth Policy to allow them to be annexed into the city, actual City Annexation application , application to re-zone to R-3, and the Preliminary Plat approval of the development at the density at which it is proposed. Our reasons are many. For starters, this proposed development does NOT fit into the neighborhood and it will in fact destroy prime farmland a res it will remove 110 acres of PRIME farming ground from agricultural production. This land has been continuously farmed for many many decades. There is additional farmland adjacent to this parcel to the north and east. This is a rural farming community. Why not locate the subdivision closer to town where there are plenty of open and available undeveloped lots already approved for subdivisions and annexation? 380 homes crammed onto 110 acres does NOT fit the neighborhood with most surrounding land being zoned SAG5, SAG10 with some at SAG2.5. In fact many lots in this area are larger lots of 5 plus acres with a lot of livestock and horses. Also worth noting, the owner of the 180 acres that is attached to the proposed 110 acre subdivision will only divide his land into 5 acre lots to family members , if at all. The type of density proposed by Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development only says its about the money for the developers and not about affordable housing or housing suitable for the neighborhood at all. In fact, city taxpayers will be bearing a lot of the burden via more taxes for schools, utilities, police and fire services, etc if this development is allowed to annex into the city. While it is true that there is a small development that was quietly annexed into the city nearby (Quail Meadows), that is the only nearby development with such a dense buildup as proposed by Tronstad Meadows. Quail is nearer the main highway and tho was advertised as “affordable housing”, it sure is not….. and the density is similar to the proposed Tronstad subdivision so we can assume it will be as cheap and ugly looking as well as NOT affordable to the people most needing affordable housing which are the young working families of the Flathead!! We don’t need more $550,000 to $800,000 homes sitting empty in the valley because the people needing affordable homes cant afford them! The Tronstad Meadows proposed development does NOT lie in the immediate path of actual or anticipated development so that is NOT a reason to change the growth policy or allow annexation into the city limits etc. Development is in fact moving northward and southward, and is already westward with Silverbrook but it is NOT moving eastward into the existing farming community so this proposed development is NOT actually in the path of actual or anticipated development and thus that cannot be used as a reason to change the Growth policy and to allow annexation into the city!!! According to the Kalispell Growth Policy Resources and Analysis Section, “Important Farmlands” map, the property may contain some prime farmland if irrigated, which it IS IRRIGATED!!! A current policy in the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035, Chapter 5, Land Use: Natural Environment, states that the City should “Encourage urban growth only on agriculture lands entirely within the city’s annexation policy boundary.” The property is near, but just outside of, both the city limits and the annexation policy boundary. The Natural Environment chapter of the growth 26 policy (policies 5 and 6) generally discourages the development of agricultural lands Other concerns we have are about all the extra traffic such a development will generate and how unable Tronstad is to handle that kind of traffic, especially on the east end where it joins whitefish stage!! While the developers talk about possibly being willing to put in a traffic light on hwy 93/tronstad rd if they have enough interest and assistance, they say nothing about what they will do to handle the extra traffic that will turn onto Whitefish Stage from Tronstad road every day. That corner is VERY blind and there are many accidents or near accidents there with the current traffic load. With the subdivision developed as proposed, they are talking about an extra 380 households in the development generating approximately an additional 3,583 vehicle trips per day!!! (Traffic Impact Study, Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, February 2024). Many of those vehicles will be turning onto Whitefish stage and then going to Reserve which is already a huge disaster of traffic congestion!! Why would anyone encourage much less allow such a plan to move forward without accommodations for all the extra traffic generated??? One of our neighbors who attended the public meeting in March by the development company and was shocked at the lack of answers they had about several logical concerns about the development which raises even more concerns which I am quoting below: “*They (the developers) said it's the city and state's choice and responsibility to provide infrastructure (ie taxpayers, not developers), and we know how long that takes, if it ever happens. *No plans to mitigate traffic issues created along WF Stage and Hwy 93 aside from maybe a stoplight at Hwy 93 and Tronstad IF the STATE decides to put one in. *No plans for supporting schools, while marketing that these will be single family homes likely to include many kids. *Developer is selling the well on the property to the city, despite other neighbors having water rights. The city wants it to "dilute" the water contamination problem they have, despite (to my knowledge) no evidence that it wouldn't cross contaminate the well and the aquifer beneath it, or even that dilution will solve the problem of contamination. There is also great concern by neighbors that this 1000 gpm well will drain too much water from the aquifer and cause surrounding homeowner wells to be shorted on water and or water pressure. In the past, the farmer who used the well to irrigate did not use it very often or very long so there was no noticeable impact on surrounding wells. But if that well is attached to the city water system, it could very well cause our wells to be affected and in fact have possible contamination to the aquifer from the city’s own contaminated wells and water system!! The developers stated they felt this development would help the housing problem in the valley by making homes affordable for 2 income families specifically like teachers, fire fighters, and police however since they are selling the lots, they admitted they have zero control over how expensive the houses actually are to build or what they sell for….. thus the “affordable housing” billboard is a total farce!!! Just like all the other allegedly “affordable housing”developments that have been built in the valley…… *No one struggling to find housing can afford to buy a lot, get a construction loan, and float those costs until completion. We believe the City has used the “affordable housing” card too many times. It’s time to let those subdivisions already approved fill and address future needs in a better planned fashion. The area they intend to put this subdivision in requires all traffic with southbound intent to first go east on Tronstad to Whitefish Stage then south to Reserve… landing all of that traffic at the most overburdened intersection on Reserve. I know, they’ve got funding, none of their own, to upgrade Reserve but that’s a major and long lasting task. The City is in the midst of the second water crisis in as many years. First it’s contaminated springs, now three of their wells are contaminated…and the City’s answer is to continue distributing contaminated water until someone else steps up to bail them out. The landfill is exploding, schools aren’t getting funded, emergency service needs aren’t being budgeted. I don’t see how a massive subdivision being pushed by politicians for an out of state developer isn’t going to compound the mess the City is already in. We heard the same “but we need affordable housing in the valley” narrative during a March planning meeting (with standing room only turn out btw) regarding a 252 unit subdivision on 60 acres in Somers. But when questioned, it was said that “it’s a free market” and people can charge and pay whatever they want. So no real plan for affordability. The lack of infrastructure in Somers was not a concern of the Board, despite many people voicing concerns. We think the City and developers have used that narrative on all of the recent subdivisions. They use “affordable” as a catch phrase to pass them and then require the minimum, if any return from the developer for impact. The result is the increased taxes for emergency services, unsafe roads, schools being over run etc. The cost to the community for a development like that becomes the tax payers burden while the developer and politicians make their millions and move on to the next one. At a glance, CAE Properties isn’t in the business of “affordable”.” Those are just some of the many reasons why we are opposed to Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing’s requests to change the growth policy, get annexed into the city, change the zoning and get preliminary plat approval. There are just way too many unanswered questions and way too many liberties being taken to further destroy the disappearing farmland in the county when there is plenty of empty lots and subdivision already annexed into the city. They need to infill what is already available, not create more developments out of the city limits paving more of our precious disappearing farmland!! This density of development does NOT fit this neighborhood!!!! Please review and reconsider what is best for the community, not what is most profitable for the city coffers and the developers!!! WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS DENSE OF DEVELOPMENT, NOR DO WE WANT THE CITY LIMITS MOVED FURTHER OR MORE LAND ANNEXED INTO THE CITY!!!! Sincerely, Nick and Sarah Schwarz 406-752-9009 Sent from Mail for Windows From:Michelle Weinberg To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Greenlight Engineering Public Comment: KGPA-24-01, KA-24-03, KPP-24-01 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, April 9, 2024 10:00:36 AM Attachments:Tronstad Greenlight 4-9-24.pdf [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello, Please find a public comment by Greenlight Engineering attached for the KGPA-24- 01, KA-24-03, KPP-24-01 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Public Hearing. Thank You, Michelle Weinberg Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC April 9, 2024 Kalispell City Planning Commission PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Transportation Impacts Greenlight Engineering has been asked by Sandy and Jeff Muller to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed Tronstad Meadow and Whitetail Crossing just outside Kalispell, Montana. We have reviewed the February 2024 “Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study” (hereafter referred to as the “TIS”) prepared by Abelin Traffic Services. There are several significant errors and omissions in the TIS that makes the traffic analysis unreliable and not compliant with City of Kalispell, Montana Department of Transportation (“MDT”) and/or industry standards. The application fails to establish compliance with the requirement that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways” and “The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” Based on this, the applications should not be approved. Executive Summary The TIS establishes that the development will cause an unmitigated failure at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road. The TIS fails to provide evidence that the traffic signal at Highway 93/Tronstad Road is warranted with any phase, and certainly not at phase 1 when it is proposed by the applicant and city for installation. MDT will almost certainly not approve a traffic signal before it is warranted. The applicant will need to find approvable alternatives for the Highway 93/Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersections “...so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” The TIS may fail to include the impacts of several large developments approved yet not constructed in the vicinity of the development, thereby possibly under representing the future traffic volumes of the study intersections. There are unexplained errors and omissions in the seasonal variation, traffic counts, peak hour factors, crash data, and level of service analysis that could impact the outcome of the TIS. The improvement at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection includes a traffic signal, intersection realignment, northbound right turn lane, separated westbound left turn lane and shared through/right lane. If this application is approved, all of these elements should be required at this intersection as the TIS does not contemplate any other option. 13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ● 503.317.4559 The TIS Illustrates an Unmitigated Intersection Failure Tables 4 and 6 of the TIS clearly establish that the intersection of Whitefish State Road/Tronstad Road degrades in level of service with the development in place. The TIS notes that “...a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions.” However, that statement is irrelevant as the City of Kalispell “Standards for Design and Construction”1 require that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” In the April 9, 2024 city staff report, the failure is acknowledged as “the TIS does show a drop in the level of service at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road and Tronstad Road that may need to be mitigated. Additional analysis and amendments to the TIS may also be required as phases of development are completed.” It is unclear how the city concludes that mitigation may be needed when it is clear that mitigation is required. The TIS fails to offer mitigation that would bring the intersection into compliance. Based on this acknowledged and unmitigated intersection failure alone, the application must be denied and no further review is necessary. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Traffic Signal Required by the City, but Not Warranted The applicant acknowledges that the development will be constructed in phases, although the applicant fails to provide the timing of their phases as required by the City of Kalispell. The City of Kalispell's “Standards for Design and Construction” requires “Descriptions should explain the time frame and stages/phases for the development.” The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations require “A phasing plan must be submitted which includes...A time frame for the development of each phase.” The TIS fails to acknowledge the development's phasing at all and offers no traffic signal warrant analysis based on the completion of each phase of the project. The phases could take place over many years, but the applicant provides no estimate of this timeline. The “Standards for Design and Construction” require that “The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” This critical analysis was not performed. The national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) traffic signal warrants are primarily based upon traffic volumes. The applicant has assumed that the traffic signal would be constructed with phase one of the development. However, there is no evidence that a traffic signal would be warranted with the completion of phase one. The TIS provides some discussion, although it lacks substantial evidence, that a traffic signal may be warranted, but only with the full development, or phase four. This TIS provides no evidence that a traffic signal may be warranted prior to phase four. The TIS notes that “One or more of these warrants should be met before a traffic signal is 1https://www.kalispell.com/DocumentCenter/View/4967/Standards-for-Design-and-Construction--Draft- PDF 2 installed at an intersection.” The MDT Traffic Engineering Manual goes further and requires that “New traffic signals must meet the minimum warrants for signalization, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and must be justified.” The MDT is clear that the minimum warrants must be met, not just that they should be met. The traffic signal warrant analysis requires an analyst to collect and/or develop projected traffic volumes over the course of the day as a minimum of eight hours are utilized in reviewing one of the traffic signal warrants. The TIS fails to provide specifics about the traffic volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analysis so that no one reviewing the TIS knows can possibly know what volumes are being utilized. The TIS provides little evidence of the hourly traffic volumes on Highway 93 and fails to provide evidence of the raw traffic counts. The TIS provides little evidence of the traffic volumes used in the analysis for Tronstad Road. The TIS provides no evidence of the traffic volumes used in the analysis in estimating Quail Meadows and the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing traffic outside of the typical AM and PM peak hours. There is absolutely no way for a reviewer to check to see whether any of the traffic signal warrants are actually met or not or if the conclusions determined in the TIS with regard to the traffic signal warrants are reliable. In discussion of the MUTCD's Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume traffic signal warrant, the TIS states that “The projected eight-hour approaching left-turn traffic volume on the westbound approach for Tronstad Road is 109 VPH which may be sufficient to meet this warrant. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” In addition to failing to provide the traffic volumes for anyone to actually review the traffic signal warrant analysis, the TIS is inconclusive about whether the traffic signal is actually warranted. In the absence of a traffic signal warrant clearly being met, it is highly unlikely that MDT will approve a traffic signal. In reviewing the Four-Hour Vehicular Volume traffic signal warrant, the TIS states that “The future projected left-turn traffic volumes from Tronstad Road in the 4th highest hour is 96 VPH which would be sufficient to meet condition B of the fourth-hour vehicle volume. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” Again, the TIS is inconclusive about whether the traffic signal is warranted and there is nowhere within the TIS where the volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analysis can be checked for reliability. In reviewing the Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant, the TIS is again inconclusive: “The analysis of the current and projected traffic data indicates that Highway 93 has an afternoon peak-hour traffic volume of approximately 2,500 VPH and the projected peak hour westbound left-turn traffic from Tronstad Road is 99 VPH. These volumes may be sufficient to meet this warrant for peak-hour traffic volumes. However, it should be noted that this warrant is unusual and is not typically used unless other warrant criteria are met. In this case other warrants are near or met, so this warrant should be considered at this location. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” The TIS notes: “Other warrants such as 7 (crash experience) and 8 (roadway network) will likely become met with the projected traffic volume increases and changes to the road system which area currently expected in this area (sic)...Currently there is no way to accurately assess when traffic signal warrants could be met at this location since left turns are restricted. It 3 is also unknown how much additional traffic may be drawn to this intersection if a signal is installed in the future. It is clear that a significant amount of traffic from the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and Quail Meadows project would turn left at this traffic signal if it were installed at this location (up to 180 vehicles per hour)...At this time, we recommend the developers of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings (sic) Subdivisions begin a traffic signal design for this location and work with MDT to determine an appropriate timing for the installation of the signal.” Possibly meeting warrants 7 and 8 is highly speculative and certainly there is not evidence that these warrants are met or will be met. The TIS fails to provide the necessary evidence or conclude that any traffic signal warrants are met at all. As the traffic volumes used in the analysis haven't been provided for review, no one else can determine that either. However, without a traffic signal, it is known that the intersection will not meet Kalispell standards that require “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” The TIS has failed to analyze the likely scenario where the traffic signal is not warranted in phases one through three when MDT will almost certainly not allow a traffic signal to be constructed. It remains unclear whether the traffic signal is warranted even with the full build- out. As a result, the applicant should be required to provide an evaluation of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersections without the traffic signal in place to ensure the intersections are compliant with the clear requirements of the City of Kalispell to ensure “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” It is likely that both intersections would require some other mitigation prior to the time when a traffic signal is warranted. The city staff report states: “The TIS does not specify at what point in the phasing of the development the traffic signal would be warranted. Based on the annexation request as part of the annexation policy discussion in this report and the current status of the intersection with a limited ¾ movement, it would be appropriate for the traffic signal to be constructed in conjunction with the first phase of development, including rebuilding the intersection to align Tronstad Road with Silverbrook Drive. As a Montana Department of Transportation (“MDT”) right-of-way, MDT determination of warrants for the traffic signal and the appropriate timing will have a large bearing on when the mitigation is put in place. However, the City’s requirement should be that it be installed as early in the phasing of the development as allowed by MDT” (emphasis added). Given that phase one of the development is only 25% (97 lots) of the total 380 planned lots and that the traffic signal warrants that may be met (not conclusively per the TIS) are based on traffic volume, it is clear that the traffic signal will not be warranted as part of phase one and may not even be met by phase four. Rather than support an unwarranted traffic signal, the city should require that the applicant revise their analysis and evaluate traffic signal warrants at the completion of each phase and require that the applicant provide a timing for their phasing (as is already required by city requirements). Installing an unwarranted traffic signal could be a legal liability and will almost certainly not be approved by MDT. While the applicant could easily evaluate this correctly and 4 completely, they have chosen to not evaluate the various phases to determine the appropriate timing of a traffic signal at this intersection. The city must ensure that all intersections operate per the city's requirements at each phase according to the city's standard which requires “The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” This requirement has been ignored. It is very unlikely that the MDT would approve a traffic signal before a traffic signal is warranted. Indeed, MDT's Traffic Engineering Manual which states that “New traffic signals must meet the minimum warrants for signalization, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and must be justified.” I am not aware that MDT has provided any comments on the traffic signal warrants and likelihood of signalization. It would be inappropriate to approve these applications without evidence that any traffic signal warrants are met. It certainly should not be assumed that the traffic signal would be installed as part of phase one. Given that MDT will not likely approve an unwarranted traffic signal with phase one, the applicant should be required to establish that the study intersections will operate adequately and safely until such time that a traffic signal is indeed warranted and approvable and the development meets the clear and objective requirements of the city. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Alternatives The TIS provides no evidence that any other traffic control alternatives have been evaluated for the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. In reviewing the need for a traffic signal, Chapter 12 of the MDT Traffic Engineering Manual recommends that a signal analysis conduct a “Consideration of Other Alternatives. The report should discuss whether or not there are any realistic alternatives for addressing the situation under study short of installing a traffic signal, including the advantages and disadvantages of each.” If other alternatives were analyzed, they certainly weren't discussed as part of the TIS. There is no evidence that the applicant has provided any analysis of other alternatives. As discussed above, it is not likely that a traffic signal will be approved as part of phase one of the development, so alternatives will need to be sought in order for this development to proceed and comply with City of Kalispell requirements that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways” and that “The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” Seasonal Traffic Variation Not Documented and Inconsistent The MDT Traffic Engineering Manual guides a traffic analyst to utilize seasonal traffic adjustments to analyze peak periods of the year as traffic volumes can fluctuate over the course of the year. The TIS states “The raw data collected for this project was adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with the data collected from MDT’s 2022 annual count station located on US Highway 2 west of Kalispell (Station A-24). This count station data indicated that the data collected in January 2022 is approximately 88% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) in this area. The raw traffic counts were factored up by 12% to account for the seasonal traffic 5 variations in this area.” While the TIS text states that the traffic counts were “...were factored up by 12%...” the appendix of the TIS illustrates that the traffic counts may have been factored up by 6%. Figure 1. Excerpt of TIS illustrating seasonal adjustment of 1.06 rather than 1.12. Additionally, the TIS provides no evidence of the traffic volumes from the count station that were used in determining the seasonal traffic variations. There is no way to anyone to review whether a 6%, 12% or some other adjustment is the appropriate adjustment to apply. Additionally, the traffic count data is from Highway 2. No evidence has been presented that a seasonal adjustment on Highway 2 could be similar to a seasonal adjustment on Highway 93. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Lane Configuration The TIS relies upon a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 93/Tronstad Road. All of the traffic analysis in the TIS that includes a traffic signal also includes the installation of a northbound right turn lane and a separated westbound left turn lane and shared through/right lane. It is unclear whether these improvements are implied as part of the city's proposed conditions of approval, but it should be recognized that these improvements should be included as part of the conditions of approval. The TIS only illustrated operations with these additional travel lanes in place and doesn't analyze the intersection without these improvements in place. The application also fails to illustrate that these improvements are feasible to construct. The TIS Fails to Follow Industry Standard The TIS fails to include any crash data so the safety of the transportation system cannot be reviewed. The traffic counts at Highway 93/Tronstad are more than two years old and it is unclear whether they have been adjusted to present year volumes. The TIS appendices indicate that the existing year volumes are from 2023, but the counts are from 2022, so one year of growth may have 6 been ignored. Traffic counts are typically based on two hour traffic counts and then the highest hour within the two hours is selected as the analysis period. The traffic study relied on weekday AM traffic counts of just a one hour period and 1 hour and 15 minutes in the weekday PM. It appears that the traffic counts may not have been collected during the actual peak hour as some of the traffic counts are highest on the edge of the time collected. Figure 4 below illustrates that only one hour was counted and the highest volume 15 minute period started at 7:30 AM, indicating that the peak hour of the intersection was possibly missed and prior to 7:30 AM. It is typical for traffic counts to be collected from 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM to ensure that traffic counts are based upon the peak hour of the transportation system. Figure 2. Excerpt of TIS illustrating short traffic count period and peaking at beginning of count period, indicating that the traffic analysis may not be based upon the actual peak hour. The TIS didn't collect traffic counts of and didn't appropriately consider the presence of heavy vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. The TIS didn't appropriately account for peak hour factors in the analysis. All of these could affect the outcome of the level of service analysis. Figure 3. Excerpt of TIS illustrating a peak hour factor of 1.0, but that number should be less than 1.0 and be based on the applicant's traffic counts. The TIS May Fail to Account for Approved Developments not Constructed It is industry standard to include the traffic impact of other developments that have been approved, yet are not constructed (commonly referred to as “in-process” traffic) as part of new traffic impact studies to ensure that the traffic impact of those projects are considered. The TIS noted that “The Quail Meadows Subdivision...would produce 368 new daily vehicle trips in this area and would have two approaches onto Tronstad Road...The anticipated traffic from this project was included in this analysis.” It does not appear that other developments have been 7 considered as part of this TIS. The TIS relies on traffic counts from January 2022. It would be appropriate to consider the impacts of any approved development that were not constructed/operational as of January 2022. Otherwise, the impacts of those developments have not been accounted for. The TIS or the city staff report refer to various other recently approved developments including Stillwater Bend, Kalispell North Town Center, Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 2 and 3, Stillwater Village, Silverbrook Estates, Town Pump, and Farm District mixed use development. It is possible that any of these developments could add traffic to the area that is excluded from the TIS and may impact the operations of the study intersections. The applicant should be required to verify whether the impacts of approved, yet not constructed developments are considered as part of this TIS and update the TIS as appropriate. Inconsistent Trip Distribution The TIS states that “...70% of the traffic approaching the intersection from the planned developments will turn left onto Highway 93.” However, the TIS also illustrates just 45% of the traffic will turn left onto Highway 93. Figure 4. Excerpt of TIS illustrating inconsistencies with the trip distribution at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. The applicant should address this discrepancy. 8 Highway 93/Tronstad Road Analysis Missing Table 5 of the TIS presents a summary of anticipated traffic operations with the development in place with the existing lane configuration at Highway 93/Tronstad Road. However, the appendices lack the traffic analysis sheets that were provided in other scenarios that would provide evidence of this analysis. The applicant should be required to provide these analysis sheets for review. Otherwise, there is no way to review the applicant's work. Conclusion As described above, the TIS contains numerous errors and omissions and fails to establish as required that the development will “...maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” The TIS fails to “...consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” The applicant has failed to consider any other alternative than a traffic signal at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. The TIS fails to establish that a traffic signal is warranted at all. Even if it is, the traffic signal warrant may only be warranted with phase four. The TIS is silent on how to address the city's clear and objective criteria to maintain adequate level of service with each phase of development. There is an unmitigated intersection failure at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road and there is a likely intersection failure at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection as the traffic signal has not been established as an approvable mitigation. Based on these issues, the applications should not be approved. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer 9 From:JUNO Mail To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows Date:Tuesday, April 9, 2024 3:47:06 PM Attachments:Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing petition.docx [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] April 9,2024 Dear city planning members,I am sending you a copy of my petition that is in opposition to the Tronstad Meadows and WhitetailCrossing annexation and rezoning. This petition will be ongoing and I will be collecting more signatures. I did want you to have a copy of the petition for the meeting tonight. Thanks for looking at this andconsidering it for my comments. Best regards, Dana K. Fraley Petition We, the undersigned, residents of Flathead County oppose proposed annexation and rezoning of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. This proposal would severely impact the land, water aquifer, aesthetic beauty, the wild animal corridor, and uniqueness of the area. The proposal entails a disproportionate amount of people living within a small area. This creates crowding, possible contamination of the water aquifer, traffic safety on roadways near the property, lack of open space to enjoy the beautiful area, undue stress on utilities, fire departments, as well as road maintenance crews. Can the proposed plan for the property sustain this amount of use over time? The plan does not state the price range of the homes. The special uniqueness of Flathead County will continue to preserve the legacy of Montana pioneers. Printed name Signed name Street Address City State Zip Petition