/
     
Fairway Park (1980)„z r .�s . 7N31s t-a- +.ram-+'r r = w • .-R. y� �,rY `` s:•: „� ✓ �„ vt. t-rsN J �4: ...? 3 k 4 ,. h :. „ Y ry3 a"�.�Y:n �- i.i'���,_ - .s. ti.s�wo�.io JI?l.i.• �:dl��d r, '-'r�-.�35�3..5'= 1 Board of County Commissioners Flathead County Box 1000 Kalispell, NIT 59901 Gentlemen and Madam: Re: Fairway Park At a regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board held March 25, 1980 the board conducted a public hearing on the preliminary plat of Fairwav Park, public comments were received dealing with a requested plan ammendment and requested Zoning District and following discussion by the board the following recommendation was adopted; "that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board recommend to the Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County that the preliminary plat of Fairway Park be given preliminary approval subject to the following conditions. 1. that provision be made in the management regulations of the court which requires mobile and modular units be placed on perminant foundations for tax purposes. 2. that the developer dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-ways along the north side of West Evergreen Drive for furture road way expansion purposes. 3. that the developer provide and improve pedrestrian- bicycle access ways to connect the proposed development with the anticipated commercial and school sites located on the bluff west of the development site.” The preliminary plat of Fairway Park was submitted to the ATS on March 6, 1980. Your body must take action on the preliminary plat within a 60 day time period which commenced the 6th day of March, 1980. Your action should be noted on three copies of the preliminary plat. One copy should be forwarded to the developer, one copy forwarded to the ATS office and one copy retained for your files. �6E�-®ant; Planning Board -2- March 28, 1980 This recommendation is submitted to your body for your consideration and action. Should your body propose action contrary to this boards recommendation, please be advised that this board wishes a meetin with your body for the purposes of discussion, prior to action by your body. Respectfully submitted, Kalispell City -County Planning Board Ann Smith President cc: George Schultz Duane Bitney -Thomas, Dean & Hoskins Taylor, Tone, Thompson & Peterson St. Dept. of Health Park Board County Sanitarian File a recorar;iendat'Lon? `;as advisee yes. � J J JJJ fff )alF' .'.aarr T�tO VeC! that the Board CRaTIr,? the �,'Oi`;p reile TlS _.Ve ,JC?Ve 100i1,e 1"1C Plan froitl agriculture —Silviculture to suburban resi.dentIa1 On t;ih.S President Lupton wished to know if Mere hac' been any f.np It frOTii the p Ople 1n Lower 'alley. Jlt:i StateC' tiaC a gOOC'. ::.any Of tie u`iEi`ili1erS l.n Lower Valley 'lave been aware of it fir SOi;hetiUte ''.Jut not `:,;itcare Of any I1leetill�S %eing held about it. '.`Cii adiVised that t`ley geCJ it was coriing up but not sure when. President Lupton wondered tier the citizens Of the area would be interested iI1 input or t'iat tonlght was adequate and you could speak for Others. NICk felt 't'lat i t probably should be taken out of t'le zone probably put t'.Iera ou11 of business if you didn't. Ji., asked what capacity ^ean Jellison was in in regard to Lower Valley. I'.e ,jas not aware of it, as 1a'.e been hired as the attorneys to represent the zone. Ji_m said he did not discuss the plan amendment but did discuss leaving the property. in or out of the zone., Dean caller: '.7o11 and advise,! he had not '.-iad, time to look _;-.,,to tie legal technicalities of i.t and that lie had tal':ed to Jii-i and Steve Petrini and that at the present tune he ``felt in Stat_ng ;that if t:e property `.loll!,. be retilove_ frogs, the d.istr.ict`1therc: ,.could be no conflicts. T ol1 salt he had Aior'_ ed with s0i e IC)ts down tliere and '.ad no "JroJlei,is 'vi.' ii t ieltI anr' :ne:! a lot .Pore about the,i ant: ,cne;a of two l:;t ...t. ir, ti,at to:hsLt ie felt t'_1at it was 4'`est to/fIl ,ve it reriovec. TO be pointed out was t''l.aC'tinis eriiStS Oil r CGrr,<inC ,!lose are COti;1t Streets and roads and Bil`lhas a right toiiiorrOw Lo bti.ld !!Cities, Jlust needs to abide by th'e`.rrd. of T: ea1th an,'. 'he e e doesn't even hay. ti ` to put in asphalt roads, those are county roads, and �'dor'Ced wLtlh hit77 dnd a [JOrka!>l2 plan, f1t5`" t'f1e topography, to put iii asphalt and Own '.Dater System, t,ai{e care of the Storii slater, CO a ,,00( job Of plann in' nG 7 f 2t d.GE SI7't gC t;lYOu ,1 t'1e process, t'ieit v��� revc>r_ liag:: c2,�.� t1 �s no`; and . 1 _ .�'_ «,.les t. BaseC' on tle ol1C _.t .,,.11 'ie 1`u_i.t Or 1C;;: C'"I.S ne'.V JiL-In _l i i ' ma'.e it a good -)Ian. President Lupton Stated that he 'anew Cie 7,Oard was well aware Of the fact Chat helcoL116 go out and do it%\tOtnorro7. Plat is bein3- 7resCltn with S the practicality Of tint, a chan e in Cie COi,1p Plan aric the 1 Lfkeli.hood and whether or note any subdivision in t'le area is In the/best interest of any one in `the county, particularly the people in/the Lower Valley ?onin- Distrieat, therefore even thou,;: he can build all over the place, that he for one, will not be threatened': Vy that potential. r Joe DeLong said there could be a legal question a's that proposed subdivision is sett in„ or, the larger part of the old Demersville Town sitJi.Ta said he wouldn't say larger. ;Dart, but rather integra' part. '/K'_!c 7, county r/iJ' S that are on the old Deriersv" I le Townsite, righ1t// then soTiie of the lots have county r'w's throug tfletii, as i you ,have clanged it. Pow Can we adoot the Subdivi Siorl\Wit out ab y'nd.'oning tale r'w's on private lots. Jim said it real v didn't taace a hearing, they can abandon a r/w by resolution, bu h i`elnersviii d the r,/.c's. Jii-J advised that they can abandon by resolution pecially if they own both sides, it rapes no difference. a.lbri; hts �Irea,c'y have obtainer'. deeds to the full r/w in t'leir secticn strict; y quit C I a _r'l F''eeF'. i �C , rt i,e7')u T17uC'f . .:;ot20n t0 t�:U F' t, iS lint i l Li' iVt' ;Bore t�20J�c m Fairway Blvd Estates: Rec. for Appl with Conditions: t0 ,iscI]SS t:")iS. PeoOli present <1C1. [lot 30ard le!,, CS Of r<lSJer ,. .�illeY Or OfflCersUst Lliterestec' liin(':oc:ners. ?resi(lent LLiptOn ClanteC t0 U1ow how forCially they could -o t'le zOni. (1� CiLSCri! for 1,':1ei.r inpUt? JiGi Sa1C a J(I'IS eleCtsE', s?)ot and tiilie t0 talc bout the De„ersvitle :esub. JT ii,i said ail the lee,tin3s do -,an t:iere ;gave been at the sire Mail or 5c,nool. 'Toll said that i)ayube those ;entlemen are not legally a RoCtrd bLlt a year a o ttte people Clown there Selected a Cfta riTic?i1 BP,cl cS ecretarl Sat.G they ap,)oitit e( t''lernse1.ves any. `.loll said they c:ic' not, they voterl. on the:,,. Cai Lou('en said there was a petition down there and that 51°, of the landowners co':an there wanted, out of that zone. Jaarr ;aantec' to know wilat happened to it and'. 'Cal saki t}le Comi:ii-SSloner.S were si.tt:Lin:) On it as they didn't have to act on it, a political pressure petitio::. i:obert LeDLic 7,,ished to i,take that motion to continue it for tF,lo ..reeks anc'. have Lower Malley coiite up ,.vit_: soi.ie ;,ore Ln.put anti wait till next rei,ular neerin- anC put 1t 727C':{ On tle floor. a:.E3 ':57arr seconc'ed that. (Au--ust 14, 197�) Questioned -,7as called for anc the notion carried unanimm usly. ;�fari.on O'Connell said that as far as bein; Or anized the district basically isn't so '.Jould sU -chest t int if i.t woul(� `)e aCcepta )le that One. Of the s;0ar0 iilt'[.1}7CrS COC:ie dOi:ITI an(: flair t'le i8ec'tins- ai?G s1e WOUI(! 5o `;J1111n tO SE'T)d OUt nOtiCCS. riC'.n't feel t}lc_y `.•tOL;i give much input except those here tonight and Dale Haarr said the only input was to get out of the district and then they could care less what happens to it. O'Connell felt this was a well planned subdivision and that land was not prime land and what he does not interfere with them and as long as he is in a position felt that one should change the boundaries. John Kain said Jim would be the logical one to chair that meeting and Jim stated he felt it was a waste of time. Woll said there would have been more people from Lower Valley except there were three other meetings tonight. Jim said one of those members was President of the County Planning Board. President Lupton said the motion was passed to table this. President Lupton felt that if it took that type of effort to get them here for the meeting they would be here. Doesn't have the time to round everyone up and if they did not wish to come, three weeks was adequate time to gather their thoughts and get back. Jim advised a news release and in tomorrows paper would show that this was tabled until other residents of Lower Valley could attend and phone calls should advise them. Jim Mohn stated there were three adjacent landowners on this project, Flathead County, City of Kalispell and Benny Brugh. Jim said the reason there was only a three page report was that because of the master plan original there was about 100 pages of information and this was part of the Village Properties Master Plan. Jim then pinpointed the proposal and advised that Duane has begun to tie together the various portions which has been working on for the last twelve years. The Master Plan was approved by the Commissiont on what is considered the concept approval, Feb. 25, 1975. Since N that time this 80+ or — plus multi famiies were incorporated into a sewer district in July 77 and the physical design is still in process with Thomas, Dean and Hoskins. The property was zoned in July 77. Didn't have the date for the sewer district. As part of sthe zoning district this property was zoned R-4 which is single family and allows 7200 sq. ft. Last month Duane submitted a conditional use permit to allow cluster development in conjunction !with that R-4 and recd approval from the Brd of Adj. as shown. !Formulas governing living space, open space, recreational etc. were previewed and approved in conjunction with that permit and that was ?effective the 28th. of last month. In review of the project it does fit the basic concept for the development area and recognizing ,physical changes and economic and in lieu of those factors the Staff ;has made a recommendation of preliminary approval with the following conditions: !a. that a dry collector sewer system be installed in the development at this time and that system be designed along the requirements of the city and the special improvement district, b. that the community water system for the project be designed to standards to tie in with the Evergreen water system, 3. that a reserve strip ten feet in width starting on Whitefish Stage be established with the filing of the final plat with the following statement: This reserve strip to be deeded to Flathead County as such time as Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County deem necessary to provide for approved r/w for Whitefish Stage. In addition to that a one foot access control strip which is controlled also by the County or governing body of jurisdiction that would prohibit access all along this r/w with the except of the approved main approach road. This does not meet the letter of consent that was given in 1975 but does at least meet the intent and provide for the options provided by the original request. At that time asked for an outright 10 ft. dedication. Unless any one had any questions that was the sum of the presentation. Jim was questioned, about filing of the final plat on that dedication and here it says filing of this plat. Jim said this plat would not be filed. The final plat would have some adjustments in the location of the building sites. The developer said it would stay right the way it was. Jim asked if he could get hiS ;aundations in and he said their engineer for the sewer and water checked and this was the final plat. Jim said when it was put into final form it should draw the necessary certificates. 10' deeded? no reserved and you lose the right to control it. After such time that the commissioners say they need it you will have to give it up. The reason he was concerned was that the triangle was designed before and if you take 10' off the triangle a nice piece of property will be destroyed and there will be 10' off the golf course which he didn't think they'd concede. That 10' goes into their T box and toilet and Jim said it depended if their fence line they put up is on the r/w. Jim said his fence line didn't match up. Long said their fence line does go at an angle. There's is a surveying error. Long said he would dedicate the land if the City would dedicate I ;theirs as when he gets up to that triangle there is no way he can give up ten feet. Jim said there was already a 6' variation between what he had and the City. That is their mistake as he had it checked. John said considering it was private property might have to widen that out should they go four lane. T box could be moved. 70' r/w. Jim said a four lane secondary need 80', 4 drive lanes, park lanes. 'Jim advised that Axelsons fence was in ten ft. giving the road there 701. John Kain said he would rather wait on that road as there expect to see the 7th. Ave tie over there. Met with Keith Allred and Tutvedt to get 7 acres in Sec. B on the north side of the golf course. Giving 10' off that triangle and if they want to take it they'll have to condemn it. Allowed ten ft. off that end. .Tim stated that when the golf course the city drew up the plat and put the fence line in and no adjustment with no expansion for the adjust— ment on the dogleg 10. Quite adequate. If they took off ten on the course it would be in front of the T. He questioned when you buy it and subdivide it and sell it but what if you buy it and keep it can they take and condemn that land then and take it. Could be quite a battle. The Commissioners Jim advised always had that authority but never used it. Ann Smith wanted to know how much dust and dirt would one raise onto that golf course. Duane said he would put in pasture grass, .;keep it cut, all green except where the houses are, need to pave 'iit. The neighbors were concerned as wanted to know what one would ado about the dust. Planted it in pasture grass. "Wanted to know what was done on the utilities there and Duane said all done to city code. Haarr asked where the pool was, and Duane said where the moat was there was a putting green and tennis court, clubhouse with pool inside. Wanted to know if they would have access to the golf course and he said there was a fence around and earn the right to go to golf course. have to go through a house. Covenants restrict it against children. Ann Smith said to disallow that. Said get them raised and then have fun. Pres. Lupton wished to know if their objects about the 10' was consistent with objections voiced on Country Estates? Would that be called an easement? Jim stated there are two approaches to be taken on the extra r/w business. Country Village and Mission Village asked for a reserve strip because it is on state highway secondary r/w but when fronts on county, then ask for a dedication, so making some changes with regards to asking for a 10' by asking for a reserve strip without asking for an outright dedication. At the county's discretion. Haarr wanted to know the long range forecasts for highway traffic on Whitefish Stage. Jim said somehwere around 8,000 vtp estimate. Meridian? 15,000 ? Highly unlikely it will ever be a four lane road. Ann Smith said if one can't get 93 4 lane, why Whitefish? Already a lot of objections in Hillcrest. Most of Meridian is almost the roper width now and have the room Appleway—Meridian Comp.Plan Chg Rec. to work with, almost to the door step, but not considered when that was laid out. Then discussed the accesses and about traffic going west and the bridge traffic. It was stated there use to be a highway going up through the golf course, and the county was going to put in the Blankenship Bridge, a real bad one and the neighbors stopped it because of the type of traffic from coming through and so it was tabled for a study and still studying it ... the county. If they do put a bridge it will be just for local access. Dale felt that with the traffic problems on Idaho, then would slay to reserve the 10' but don't see that there will be that type of direction put on traffic down Whitefish Stage. Think a by—pass would be further out than that. Ann Smith wondered if the Mall traffic would affect that. Dale said they would come across on Evergreen. John Kain said it was necessary to keep one thing in mind, on the east —north project scheduled to be built next summer, 7th. Avenue EN from Idaho is going to be reconstructed, a 44' wide street. This was inter discussed within the Board. Explained was that George Schulze who has the forty is in with them and recommended that the school dedication be to the south and of course Keith Allred, and Paul Tutvedt agree so that puts the pressure to put the road on through, just a short distance to 93. So the basic design is to take everything west. North and south is what bears the traffic now but as that develops the traffic within that area will be basically going west. Any traffic would go to 93. Come right out on the north side of Elmers, unless Jack Cutman, 4 Mile Dr., called Grandview...come right out at Parkview Terrace. Then discussed was the traffic flow from there. Jim said he has to agree with Duane somewhat but felt that the route would still be one of the historic routes to that area and B&B, the commercial core will be the hub and still have to look at improving it and work around it. Duane not objecting on thils one but concerned about the triangle. John Kain said that should be addressed next. Jim felt.that he should point out that the 80 acres up on top is in limbo and is zoned for RA-1 and —2 and regardless of what happens, Whitefish Stage will continue to be a heavily travelled route and have worked on at least four different designs with Duane on that 80, and none have come up to RA-2 densities and with the changing building designs may tell him he can't put anything less than RA- 2 and then there will be problems. John Kain moved that the Board grant preliminary approval of Fairway Blvd Estates with the conditions as stipulated by the Staff; seconded by Dale Haarr. Chr. Lupton repeated the motion. Question called for, motion carried. Dale Haarr advised the Board he had to leave. Chr. Lupton felt that land use should be given top priority. Jim felt that the landowners would probably be coming to the Board with a proposal. Jim said he would suggest that the Board take the area south of Spring Creek, to Hathaway, from Meridian, the area presently Opsand Annex Rec. for Annex. Appd Agenda: Communications Discussion: recommended for urban density. John Kain said that Pack had preliminary plans for the rest of his property that is to the south and east and southeast of the Sizzler, so that butts right up to !this and discussed was the Staff's alternatives, felt that perhaps traffic would be routed onto Center Street, or follow along the north line of the Burlington Northern r/w to tie in with Montana St. Now the Redevelopment Plan calls for a commercial core. Jim stated there were two land uses recommended for south of Hathaway, one is industrial and then come back into the urban residential. Not talking about zoning but a change in the Plan. Jim stated that the other alternative is to put it into high density urban, because there are some professional uses associated with it. Questioned was the practicality due to traffic. The Board then discussed all the existing properties and their respective zones and the possibility of zoning all the way to the railroad, and possibly retaining some for light industrial along the railroad. Chr. Lupton requested a motion. Jim stated that it was a forgone conclusion that the plan for that area needed to be changed, but just a matter of how much and felt it should be all done. John Kain moved that the area that is currently in the county under the Board's territorial jurisdiction, bordered by Appleway on the south, Hwy 2 and Meridian on the east from the urban density to commercial. Questioned was whether commercial was addressed in the Plan. Advised it was as a general category. May not want to go south of Appleway because of Forest Products, and that probably would be under light industrial. Questioned the amount of acreage, between Appleway and the railroad. Runs on an angle. Could be some track frontage and thought is to hold off until later for the total area. Jim advised any of the B districts were compatible, probably B-2 and -b. Jim didn't feel that needed to be addressed, but Chr. Lupton felt there was too much commercial already. Jim stated one would go to hearing with this type of proposal for that area; Ray Lybeck seconded the motion. Chr. Lupton called for the question, motion carried unanimously. Opsand Annexation is the next proposal. Have half acre, which is contiguous on three sides to the City. No Comp. change required. Jim needed a motion of endorsement and recommended R-4 zone. Dorothy Garvin moved that this be done; seconded by Ann Smith; question called for recommending annexation with R-4 zoning as recommended by the Staff: question called for, motion carried. Ann Smith was advised that it now needed to be taken to the City Council. Jim Mohn ran quickly through all the communications as indicated on the Agenda. Jim clarified the Russell road access problem. Jim stated that what Lloyd Shoemacher was looking for was the right -50 KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 25, 1980 Members Present: Ann Smith, Chairman Roger Graham, Bob LeDuc Jack Peters, Frank Paliga Norma Corbitt, Kathryn Jukich Dorothy Garvin, Jack Heller Others Present: Nick Verma, ATS Director Jim Mohn, Planner Minutes Meeting was called to order at 7:30 in the Kalispell City Hall. Minutes of the previous March 11 meeting were read and approved. Planning Smith referred to a letter from Commissioner Guay on the Director hiring of the new ATS Director, Prick Verma, and intro- duced Mr. Verma to the Board and the public. Public Hearing- A public hearing was held on the Fairway Park Develop - Fairway Park ment which consists of 250 acres, high density urban. Board will consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change agricultural land to a classification of urban density, a zoning petition to zone the prop- erty R-5 in accordance with surrounding jurisdiction and consideration of the development proposal. Mohn presented a layout of Fairway Park and listed the following ATS concerns: 1. Ability of existing area roads to handle the traffic impact. Would require city action to improve West Evergreen Drive and eventually extend to U.S. #2, including construct- ion of a bridge. 2. Preservation of Class 1 thru 4 agricultural soils. This land is Class 1 thru 4 soil. Developer's Bruce Lutz, landscape architect, and Marshall Murray, Presentation representative for owner George Schultz and developer Duane Bitney, described the planned development with the aid of a 3-D model. The zoning request of R-5 would encompass all proposed areas including modular and mobile home structures (800 structures), gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis court, club houses, day care center and an 18-hole executive golf course surrounded by the modular -mobile home structures. Urban density for this area is compatible to the surrounding areas. The golf course is the backbone of the area, comprising approximately 263,,', lots comprise 32%, roads 1751), golf course 27F, park 71, open space on river 15%, club area 1%. Density is 3.2 dwelling units/acre. Area is an island of agriculture surrounded by developments and has been in the planning stages for 10 years. Lots are to be leased, with owner - control of unit placement, maintenance of the grounds and boulevards. 60' right-of-way is allowed for 30' roads. Underground utilities, either Evergreen water or city water with sewer to be collected and pumped uphill to a reservoir until city sewer is available. Future school site will be donated to District #5 and has that school board's approval. Loops are designed on roadways instead of cul de sacs for easier snow removal and consideration of a foot- path up the hill to decrease traffic. Lots can only be developed as market demands, rest of area will be farmed until developed. Public Comment Public comment from adjacent residents includes the following: Pete Skibsrud, Country Village,questioned the sewer system in the area of his residence. Sewer has to be approved by the State Health Department. Darryl Reiner, *fission Village, was concerned with mobile home and modular home structures. Fairway Park covenants were read which included aesthetic architectural control approved by manager -owner. Dan Bangman, Hillcrest, questioned amendments added to covenants to make allowances during times of economic stress in order to fill the lots, ground and sewer water, and the scenic value of the area. Lyle Cozen, '!•fission Village, foresaw problems with trusting management in road improvement - two schools on either end of the development and provisions for snow removal. Linda Graub stated at present there was a traffic problem, especially concerning school children. Her address is Kingsway. Board Comment Members of the Board posed the following questions and concerns: Do developers have the expense of improving West Evergreen Drive and the bridge? How much time will each phase require? Long-term leases or month - to -month, taxing problem and long-term depreciation. They requested a change in covenants for a permanent foundation for a stable tax base, bussing, storage buildings (mini -storage will be built on the complex). Developers should bear expense of constructing and maintaining pedestrian roadways and consider bicycling paths throught the development to divert traffic from existing roads. No curbs and gutters planned - use of green boulevards. Should consider intersections planned for mobile home parking and moving. -2- Fairway Park Graham moved to authorize ATS to draft a resolution Approved to change Comprehensive Plan from agricultural to urban residential. 'Motion unanimous. Heller moved to zone Fairway Park area R-5 contingent upon the following: 1. Cluster developments around integrated parks and open spaces, the use of the bluff as backup access and future north development, and integration of pedestrian and bicycling paths throughout. 2. Inter- section variationa allowed conducive to moving and placement of mobiel homes. 3. Structures meet re- quired specifications so they are taxed as real estate. 4. Particular attention to walkways, sidewalks along existing roadways for students that makes snow removal feasible and developers deed right-of-way on Evergreen Drive. Motion was amended after discussion to include: 1. Pedestrian access. 2. 10' roadway dedication, and 3. Structures taxed as real estate. Amended motion carried unanimously. Old Business Old Business: Meridian Zoning District was tabled until next meeting for submittal of further consideration A zoning conformance permit was distributed. ATS will research this - building permits cannot be issued until zoning conforms. 1980-81 Priorities for the year 1980-81 were discussed. Priorities priorities listed are:l.Update of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Consideration of the legislature -passed MELDA (Montana Economic Development Act) which has to be adopted by individual cities concerning tax breaks on remodeling and improvements - Stated in Title 15 of the Montana Codes and would require funds to place on the ballot. 3. Update of Subdivision Regulations. 4. Comprehensive Traffic Plan and Study for the city and county. 5. City has requested a County Zoning Plan - will be addressed at the next board meeting in form of a motion to present to the CAB. Meeting was adjourned at 10:00. Next meeting is scheduled for April 8, 7:30 P.M. in the Kalispell City Hall. Respectfully submitted, Linda Tippetts, Secretary -3- Public Comment - Public comment was heard on Fairway Park from Fairway Park Herb Koenig on behalf of himself and the Flat- head Conservation District. He stated 800 acres have been taken from farm production in the Kalispell area and 3,000,000 acres nati3nwLde last year were lost from farm production. He stressed the seriousness of the problem and termed the condition as explosive. Koenig questioned the feasibility of sewage disposal, State Health Department approval and the legality of changing the Comprehensive Plan. Susan Sandy, Mission Village, commented or, the garbled newspaper coverage of the Fairway develop- ment approval, present sewage problem in Mission Village basements, present drainage problem on Schultz farm land, lack of knowledge concerning proposed schools, cost of eventual city sewer lines across the Stillwater River, and that the County Sanitarian's approval of the sewer system was marginal. Mo'nn stated on -site testing will not begin until the Commissioners approve Fairway and in his opinion the disposal problem will be difficult to solve. janelle Reiner, (the Bluff) felt the previous meeting was undemocratic, Schultz land is a floodplain and in general affirmed Koenig's stand. State Department Smith referred to correspondence from the State of Highways - Department of Highways addressed to Verma and Road Impact the County Commissioners concerning pending TAC priorities. The Department of Highways recommended no further subdivisions on West Evergreen, West Reserve and Whitefish Stage until pedestrian and cycling areas are developed. The Board felt a policy should be established that costs of those pathways should be shared by developers. LeDuc stated Commissioners were conducive to further construction on those roads. Board advised the public to approach the Commissioners with their comments on agricultural land. Commissioners use the Board's public hearings only as a basis of testimony. KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 8, 1980 Members Present: Ann Smith, Chairman Jack Peters, Roger Graham Bob LeDuc, Norma Corbitt Jack Heller, Kathryn Jukich Dorothy Garvin Others Present: Jim Mohn, Flathead Regional Development Office Minutes Meeting was called to order at 7:30 in the Kalis- Approved pell City Hall. Minutes were approved as presented upon motion Corbitt, second by Garvin. Meridian Zoning Smith referred to Mohn correspondence regarding Tabled Meridian Zoning. Any decision will have to be tabled pending a Supreme Court decision concerning the Developers Diversified Mall case. Any zoning at this time would be moot. Mohn explained the legal procedures and a conflict between City or County Zoning is at question. Present zoning is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Supreme Court finds in favor of either the City or the County, the other will have to amend their legal procedures. Commissioner's present zoning of B-3 is contrary to the request of the majority of area landowners. Jerry Oftedahl, owner of 10 acres of the 26 acres zoned was present. Fairway Plan Discussion was held on Resolution #13, Plan Amendment Amendment Signed to Fairway Park Development. March 25th Board meet- ing considered and approved a three-part action including Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning and the Development itself. #13 spells legal require- ments to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a map change for Fairway Park. Resolution was signed by Ann Smith and Norma Corbitt. (Corbitt stated she now disapproved of the development and was signing as the Board Secretary only.) i September 26, 1988 Board of Commissioners Flathead County 800 South Main Kalispell, MT 59901 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 752-5300 Ext. 279 Re: Status of Preliminary Plat Approval for Glacier Village Green a.k.a Fairway Park Dear Commissioners: Marshall Murray of Murray, Kaufman, Vidal and Gordon is seeking 'continued preliminary approval of the rest of the park (Fairway Park)" as per his letter of September 2, 1988. This Office has evaluated this request and concludes that the preliminary plat approval of Fairway Park has expired. This finding is supported by the following observations. Preliminary plat approval for Fairway Park was granted in October 1980. The development was described in the public hearing minutes of 1980 as "...including modular and mobile home structures, gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis court, clubhouses, daycare center, and an 18—hole executive golf course surrounded by the modular —mobile home structures". Approval was contingent on the compliance with 13 conditions. The initial preliminary plat approval was granted for one year. In October 1981, the developers requested and were granted a one year extension to the preliminary plat approval. The following year, the developers again requested a one year extension to the preliminary plat approval. The extension was granted by the Commissioners "until October 1983". Said extension was approved based upon a subdivision improvements agreement dated and signed on October 4, 1982. Said agreement reiterated the 13 conditions of preliminary plat approval but also required a $250,000 line of credit in order to guarantee completion of the improvements. Other provisions of the extension agreement included a statement that the "developer shall have up to and including October 2, 1983 to comply with the above conditions". Furthermore, "that the developer will not rent or lease any of the property in Fairway Park — Glacier Village Greens until final approval is granted". October 2, 1983 passed without the developer complying with the conditions of approval or with the provisions of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. No request was made for another extension. Late in 1985, the developers announced the grand opening of Village Greens. A model dwelling was erected on site. In response to this apparent violation of preliminary plat approval, or lack thereof, this Office wrote Duane Bitney and requested verification of compliance with preliminary plat approval. No response to the letter was received. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Board of Commissioners Re: Status of Preliminary Plat Approval for Glacier Village Green a.k.a Fairway Park September 26, 1988 Page 2 In the last year, more improvements have been made in the area of the 1980 approval including paving of roads. It is our opinion that the development and installation of dwelling units is proceeding without the final approval required by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Furthermore, it seems evident that the preliminary plat approval expired in October 1983. It should also be pointed out that the development was proposed as a mobile home park, yet the development has never received licensing by the State as a mobile home park. We believe the request by Marshall Murray for "continued preliminary approval" is without merit given the expiration of the 1982 Agreement. Continued preliminary approval would raise significant questions as to a final date for the completion of the development and in what manner the improvements will be phased. For example, at what point will looped roads be required, the clubhouse, golf course, etc. It is also obvious from an earlier meeting this year that there are two versions of the plat with contention as to which one is "valid". This Office, therefore, can find no basis for granting continued approval. The plat has expired, which means any future development must be subject to a new application for preliminary plat approval. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen F. Herbaly Planning Director SFH/DMG/dh Office ut the Counq Attbt ,tey Flathead County TED O. LYMPUS, County Attorney JONATHAN B. SMITH, Chief Deputy DENNIS J. HESTER, Deputy RANDY K. SCHWICKERT, Deputy THOMAS J. ESCH, Deputy EDWARD CORRIGAN, Deputy Kalispell, Montana 59903.1516 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Flathead County Commissioners FROM: Jonathan B. Smith, Deput;y; ;�-- DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT; Glacier Village Greens (Fairway Park) P.O. Box 1516 Courthouse Annex (406) 752.5300 • Ext. 241 On October 2, 1980, this Board gave preliminary subdivision approval to Fairway Park, an 800 lot "planned modular unit development." All spaces within the subdivision were to be leased; thus, the property would remain under one ownership. Ex- tensions of the preliminary approval were granted, upon request of the developer, through October, 1983. By letter dated May 7, 1986, former Planning Director Nakul Verma requested confirmation from the developer that the conditions of approval had been met. No reply to that request was ever received. The landowner has since sought and been given preliminary approval for a 95 lot subdivision which covers a portion of the land previously approved for leased spaces. In the subdivision recently approved, the lots can be -sold as well as leased. In connection with the review of this recent proposal, the issue of the continued viability of the 1980 preliminary approval of 800 lots was raised. The Planning Board recommended that the preliminary approval be granted only upon the condition that the 1980 approval be deemed null and void. The landowner objected to that condition and has recently requested that this Board reaf- firm that approval. There is no simple legal answer to this problem. On the one hand, the developer, on behalf of the landowner, signed an agree- ment in October, 1982, agreeing to meet all conditions of the preliminary approval by October, 1983. The developer has yet to demonstrate compliance with those conditions. The 1986 letter from Nick Verma to the developer indicates that improvements for "Phase 1" were also to be completed, and an engineer's certifi- cate of completion issued, yet the master plan submitted by the developer does not show what "Phase 1" is or what improvements were to be completed in connection with "Phase 1". On the other hand, at least part of this problem is at- tributable to the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations in ef- Board of County Commissioners September 28, 1988 Page Two feet in 1980. (The County has since revised the subdivision regulations and the present regulations were adopted effective March 30, 1984). The regulations in effect in 1980 contained no procedure for the final approval of subdivisions created by rent or lease. Section 76-3-208, M.C.A., states as follows: "Subdivisions created by rent or lease are exempt from the surveying and filing requirements of this chapter but must be submitted for review and approved by the governing body before portions thereof may be rented or leased. Similarly, Section 3.3.1 of the Subdivision Regulations in effect in 1980 stated that subdivisions created by rent or lease "are exempt from the final plat requirements of these regulations." Thus, there was no procedure by which a landowner subdividing by lease or rental could gain "final approval" under those regula- tions. It is also important to note that at the time of the preliminary approval in 1980 no one involved in the project ex- pected development of all 800 units in a short period of time. The developer, at that time, contemplated twenty to thirty years, at a minimum, for full development. Indeed, the County prohibited the immediate development of the full 800 units by placing a condition on the preliminary approval that no more than 100 units could be added to the development in any one calendar year. Thus, all parties involved were aware that the development of the full 800 units allowed would take place over an extended period of time, much longer than the one year period for which preliminary approval was granted. In 1985, the developer began placing modular units on the property. The County Zoning Administrator signed off on a build- ing permit application presented to him by the City of Kalispell in 1985, thereby, at least implicitly, agreeing that it was ap- propriate to place buildings on the property even though a condi- tion of preliminary approval required that "final approval" be obtained prior to leasing any of the ground for placement of units thereon. To date, seven units have been placed on the property, without objection by the County. In light of the foregoing, we have concluded that the Board of Commissioners has discretion to reaffirm the preliminary ap- proval of Glacier Village Greens. The landowner should, however, be required to seek, in a timely manner, final approval of that subdivision under the provisions of the current Flathead County Subdivision Regulations and, more particularly, Sections 2.18.E and 5.3.D thereof. Section 5.3.0 allows for the completion of improvements in phases and would provide a mechanism by which the Board of County Commissioners September 28, 1988 Page Three development of each phase could be monitored by the County for compliance with the final approval granted by this Board. The recent request by the landowner for approval of a sub- division to allow the sale of lots on that property raises issues not contemplated when the 1980 preliminary approval was granted by the Board of Commissioners. The Planning staff is justifiably concerned that the previous review of this development as a sub- division created by rent or lease did not contemplate such sales and therefore was not adequate to address the issues which arise from sale of those lots. Any further requests by the landowner for approval of subdivisions allowing the sale of lots on that property should be reviewed with the entire project in mind in order that the affect of such sales on the entire project and the affect the sale of a large number of lots previously approved for lease, could be taken into account by the Commissioners prior to any future approval of creation of lots to be sold. If the Board of Commissioners so desires, this Office will work with the landowner to develop an agreement between him and the County which would reaffirm the preliminary approval pre- viously granted by the Board of Commissioners but also require the landowner to seek final approval and to, thereby, give the County a more definitive idea of what it has approved. JBS/mp i -ATHEAD COUNTY, MC ,► A � r`)� / 1 3 t+ October 5, 1988 (Continued) Extension request/S.I.A. Country Lake homes, Phase 2/Walter Serles Present were Chairman Krueger, Commissioners Jacobson and Gipe, Assistant Bennett, Paul Stokes, Walter Searles, Hugh Osborne and Clerk Stratton. Commissioner Jacobson moved to grant the one year extension to Walter Searles for the S.I.A. for the Country Lake llomes/Please Il and that there shall be no further extensions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gipe. Chairman Krueger asked how much less this estimate is than the original. Mr. Stokes said approximately $150,000. however, the extension is for the original S.l.A, without any other changes. Aye -Krueger, Jacobson and Gipe. Motion carried unanimously. Review of Fairway Park/Glacier Village Greens Present for the 9:30 o'clock A.M. meeting were Chairman Krueger, Commissioners Jacobson and Gipe, Assistant Bennett, Chief Deputy Attorney Jonathan Smith, Senior Planner David M. Greer, Planner Hugh Osborne, developer George E. Schulze and Clerk Stratton. A letter was received by the Board of Commissioners from Jonathan Smith and Marshall Murray regarding the status of. Fairway Park/Glacier Village Greens. Mr., Schulze requested the continuation of a former meeting on this matter in order to determine the status of his subdivision. Chairman Krueger asked Jonathan Smith for a legal recommendation. Jonathan said that as a legal matter, the Board of Commissioners could do one of two things. They could say, on the one hand, the developer back in 1983 was aware that he was supposed to have completed the conditions and they were not done. '1'lley didn't respond to correspondence in 86 and thus as a legal matter, the Board could say that inasmuch as they didn't demonstrate completion of the things that had to be done under the conditions - that the preliminary approval had lapsed. lie said on the other hand, as a legal matter, that the regulations in effect up until 1984 really didn't have a method by which someone with a rent or lease subdivision got final approval. That was recognized when the regulations were rewritten in 1984 and the method was written in the new regulations. They now have procedure by which you get final approval for a rent/lease subdivision. State subdivision law says the rent/lease subdivision does not have to comply with the filing requirements, so you never file a final plat on it. Thus, under the old regs, there was no procedure for final. approval. Duane Bitney, as the developer back then, didn't have a method under the regulations to get final approval. What Mr. Smith said in his memo, is that the Board does have the discretion to say - yes, we will recognize the preliminary approval, but we will insist that the land owner (now George who has been the landholder the whole time) as the developer will have to come in with a submittal under the new regulations, which is not technically a final plat, but: the same thing as lie would have to receive final approval and show that the conditions had been met and do a phasing agreement which would allow him to phase in development under the new regulations. In regard to the letter the Board received from FRDO, Chairman Krueger asked Mr. Greer their position on the matter. Mr. Greer said if you follow the paperwork trail - they did go through two extensions of preliminary plat approval assuming that they need an extension of preliminary plat approval. The last one included a S.I.A. agreement which also expired. As part of the S.I.A, agreement, the Commissioners had included a statement that the developer will not rent or lease any of the property of. Fairway Park/Glacier Village Greens until the final approval is granted. That statement implied that some sort of final approval is necessary. FRDO never received that and also notes that if it was approved as a Mobile home Park, the State never was asked for a license for a Mobile Home Park. Chairman Krueger said, then, the Board can either consider extending this agreement and perhaps putting a time limit on it for doing the project right or that approval has lapsed. W George said, basically, he is not asking for anything more than they had on the original approval when they master -planned the subdivision. They went into the project with the idea that there was approximately 248 acres in that area and this goes back to approximately 20 years ago which was to include the school, a stand pipe water tower for the Evergreen Water, and the Sewer District. 'Those things have taken place within that time frame. Some lots have developed such as Mission View, part of the Fairway Park and Riverview Greens. It was the concept of the plan to include an 18 hole golf course and a high density modular home type of situation for retired people. This was brought before the Board and preliminary plat approval was obtained after a few years of negotiations and meetings. Mr..Bitney and Mr. Schulze then formed the sewer district and continued to put in the improvements. Land was given to Evergreen Water for three wells to facilitate the water usage. Power and services are in. lie feels that they should have the master plan approval and as they come in with phases they will come in with the plat and all of the services that have to be in and go through the process on the phases that they continue. lie felt that changes in road or in density could be addressed when they come in with phases. Jonathan asked if it is a mobile home park. Mr. Schulze said that he is not sure what it is right now. If they file a filial plat, then it will be a COMMIES ,►HERS' JOURNAL 66 Jj October 5, 1988 (Continued) subdivision for modular homes or stick homes, which would conform to the! modular home type of architecture. Chairman Krueger said he would have a bit of a problem in allowing 20 years tol do all of this. Mr. Schulze said you can't do it in 2, 5 or more years on a! master plan in this valley . Chairman Krueger felt that it would need to bell reviewed from time to time. Commissioner Jacobson said that he was still at a loss as to what kind of action to take. Jonathan said that they can do one of two things: 1) we (the Board) feel that since the developer did not meet the conditions of both the conditions of the preliminary approval and the agreement that he signed - therefore, the approval has lapsed or 2) to say, in light of the fact that really wasn't a mechanism for gaining final plat approval, and even though that he agreed that he wouldn't put in any mobile structures until there was final approval, there really wasn't a way to get final approval - you could say we (the Board) will recognize the preliminary plat approval as still valid but you have 6 months or a year to come in with what is called a final approval for a lease/rent subdivision and get that final approval so the Board knows what they have approved. As it would develop in the future, there would be a plan that they would have to stick to. If they were to deviate from the plan in the future, they would have to come back in for review. Commissioner Jacobson wondered how they could have a lease/rental situation if someone were to build a regular building rather than move a modular building in. George said felt there is nothing in the regulations saying that he can't own the lot and lease a lot to someone who wants to build a home on there. Jonathan said that is one of the problems that developed when they came in with the recent subdivision wanting to sell off 95 lots. Jonathan stated that what George felt was that it shouldn't preclude the lease/rental of the other lots. George said that if they do continue to develop lots beyond the 95, they will go through the same process as they did with the 95. Commissioner Gipe asked if they are planning to lease or sell the lots beyond the 95 lots. George said they don't have any lots developed beyond the first phase, which is only 45. George felt that the market seems to be for purchaseing rather than leasing at this time. George said what he is asking for today - is that the master plan concept still stays. He said what they do with it in phases, whether it be rentals or purchase lots, would have to be engineered, approved by State etc. Assistant Bennett asked if all of the original conditions on the preliminary plat had been completed. Jonathan said probably most of the conditions had been met and you would look at that when you grant final approval. Mr. Schulze felt that they went beyond the original conditions. After discussion regarding a time frame, Commissioner Jacobson moved that the Board of Flathead County Commissioners will recognize the preliminary approval as continuing in effect for one year and in that interim period and by that deadline, George has to come in and get final approval for the lease/rental subdivision and submit the Special Improvement Agreement under the new regulations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gipe. Discussion -Jonathan said that the County Attorney's Office will work with. George in coming up with an agreement on final approval for a phase -in' agreement, etc. However, if he misses the deadline this time, tie knows that his preliminary approval has lapsed. George asked what is entailed in the final approval for lease/rental purposes. Jonathan said basically, a drawing that would be a little more like a final plat - a little more detailed that would show exactly what it is that the Commissioners are approving. Mr. Greer stated that it would include something that would state when the improvements will be done if they are not done all at once. Jonathan said that would be under the regulation that provides for phasing in at which time the developer would have to come in and and demonstrate to the Board that the improvements are in before tie can start leasing. George said that the only thing he has a problem with is that that it is master planned for that type of development, and he doesn't want to put in one phase and spend the money to do that, and if the Commissioners change, etc., then be told that they don't want that type of development. George asked what he has to do within the one year. Commissioner Gipe said he should get together with Jonathan and the Planning Department and work out the agreement as to how the phasing will be done and for what period of time will be needed for the phasing in. George asked if he has approval to put the 18 hole golf course, or if he has to come•in and do the whole thing again. It was the consensus that there is no problem in putting the golf course in. Aye -Krueger, Jacobson and Gipe. Motion carried unanimously. September 18, 1989 (Continued) or before 9:30 A.M. on Oct. 4, 1989. Bids will be opened and read atGlE P # 10:00 A.M. on Oct. 4, 1989 in the Commissioners' Office in the West Annex ``�iII of the Courthouse. The Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to accept the bid deemed to be in the best interest'of Flathead County. The award of a bid will be made solely by the issuance of a letter of award to the successful bidder by the Office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder. Dated this 18th day of September, 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Flathead County, Montana /s/Allen A. Jacobson P.T. Allen A. Jacobson, Chairman P.T. /s/Susan W. Haverfield by S.L. Stratton Susan W. Haverfield, Clerk of Board PLEASE PUBLISH IN YOUR ISSUES OF: September 23, and September 30, 1989. Lakeshore Applications Present for the 9:45 A.M. meeting were Chairman P.T. Jacobson, Commissioner Adkins, Assistant Bennett, Planner Tom Jentz and Clerk Stratton. After review of Lakeshore Applications, motion was made by Commissioner Adkins to grant Lakeshore Permits 89-69/Wetzke & Mezei, 89-81/Helmer, 89- 86/Thompson and 89-88/Ewald per the recommendation and conditions set forth by FRDO with authorization for Chairman P.T. to sign. Chairman P.T. Jacobson seconded the motion. Aye -Jacobson and Adkins. Motion carried by the quorum present. Review of Lakeshore Application 89-87/Sunset Point Partnership was held. Confusion developed regarding this work being done because upon receiving plat approval, Mr. Averill received a landscape approval from the Commissioners Office and evidently did not realize he needed a Lakeshore Permit in addition to the landscape approval. Commissioner Adkins moved to grant Lakeshore Permit 89-87 for the Sunset Point Partnership per the conditions set forth by FRDO and authorize Chairman P.T. to sign. Motion seconded by Chairman P.T. Jacobson. Aye -Jacobson and Adkins. Motion carried by the quorum present. Discussion/re: Personal Leave Present for the 10:00 A.M. meeting were Chairman P.T. Jacobson, Commissioner Adkins, Data Processing Manager Norman Calvert, Pat Tinseth and Deb Diest, Assistant Bennett and Clerk Stratton. Discussion was held regarding the complications of bookkeeping regarding the accrual and use of personal days, especially concerning part time employees. Deb recommended changes to the Personal & Procedures Manual: 1) New Hires begin accruing on hire date. Must use the balance on the books between their one year, anniversary and the end of Pay Period 13. The amount of time they have to use their balance accrued during year one is proportionate to the hours accrued. 2) To simplify bookkeeping and the amount of rules needed, eliminate 6.616 on page 6-7. Personal leave may be taken in any increment, just as sick and vacation. The computer will keep track of time taken and time remaining, in addition to accruing on a pro -rated basis. Norm said as a department head, he would rather loose someone for an hour or two in a day rather than a whole day. Pat felt that the full time people will probably use a full day at a time. After further discussion, Chairman P.T. Jacobson directed Assistant Bennett to work with the County Attorney's Office to make the suggested changes needed. At 5:00 o'clock P.M., the Board continued the session until 8:00 o'clock A.M. on September 19, 1989. September 19, 1989 The Board of County Commissioners met in continued session at 8:00 o'clock A.M. Chairman Gipe, Commissioners Jacobson and Adkins and Chief Deputy Clerk Peterson were present. Continuation of Request for Extension/Preliminary Plat Approval -Glacier Villake Greens 12fwGlf3Rit". L September 19, 1989 (Continued) Present for the 9:00 A.M. meeting were Chairman Gipe, Commissioners Jacobson and Adkins, Assistant Bennett, Senior Planner David M. Greer, Surveyor Tom Sands, George Schulze and Clerk Stratton. Assistant Bennett asked who the developer is - George Schulze, Duane Bitney or combination of both. Chairman Gipe said this question came up the other day. Assistant Bennett also asked if they are asking for an extension. George Schulze said, "Well, I guess ... I as a landlord or landowner and Duane as a developer - kind of a combination of the two." Bennett said that is contrary to what the minutes (Oct. 5, 1988) reflect. Schulze said he did not remember. Bennett quoted, "will recognize the preliminary approval, but we will insist that the land owner (now George who has been the landholder the whole time) as the developer will have to come in with a submittal." Bennett stated, "But, then we have an improper request for an extension (as it was submitted at this time by Bitney)." Bennett asked if at this point Schulze is asking for an extension or submitting for final plat approval. Sands said this isn't a final plat per se. Bennett: "For lack of a better term. You were to submit, also, a phasing agreement. Is that prepared and ready?" Sands said he didn't know anything about that. Bennett: "The motion last time [Commissioner Jacobson moved that the Board of Flathead County Commissioners will recognize the preliminary approval as continuing in effect for one year and in that interim period and by that deadline, George has to come in and get final approval for the lease/rental subdivision and submit the Special Improvement Agreement under the new regulations. Under the discussion [Jonathan said that the County Attorney's Office wilg work with George in coming up with an agreement on final approval for a phase -in agreement, etc. However, if he misses the deadline this time, he knows that his preliminary approval has lapsed 3 " Thus, Mr. Schulze has until October 5th to submit an agreement. George said they would have to get together with Greer, Jonathan Smith and Tom on this. Bennett said Jonathan Smith had not been contacted by George at all on this matter. Bennett again asked if George and Tom have any type of an agreement put together yet. George said Bennett would have to ask Tom - George did not know. Bennett reiterated that was the condition under which the approval was granted. Otherwise, it will expire on October 5 unless the Commissioners agree to an extension. Bennett said he does not have a proper request for an extension if George Schulze is the owner and the developer. George could submit one before the deadline; however, Bennett said an extension would be contrary to the motion made on October 5, 1988. Tom said he did not understand what is being talked about in regard to "phases" on this agreement. Bennett said approval is being granted for the overall master plan of this development, to be phased in. Bennett read from the minutes of October 5, 1988, "George asked what is entailed in the final approval for lease/rental purposes. Jonathan said basically, a drawing that would be a little more like a final plat - a little more detailed that would show exactly what it is that the Commissioners are approving. Mr. Greer stated that it would include something that would state when the improvements will be done, if they are not done all at once. Jonathan said that would be under the regulation that provides for phasing in at which time the developer would have to come in and demonstrate to the Board that the improvements are in before he can start leasing." Bennett said it was also discussed that some kind of plan is necessary regarding what would be the next phases and time limits on phasing in of the total project. George said it would be difficult to make a time frame at the rate they are going. He said at the present rate, it may take 30 years or longer. Jacobson asked for a copy of the minutes of October 5, 1988 be made available for Tom and George. He suggested that George, Tom, Dave Greer and Jonathan Smith get together and come up with something to present FRDO for review and recommendations to be submitted to the Commissioners before the October 5th deadline. Bennett felt the motion of October 5, 1988 was very clear that if the time frame was missed - then the preliminary plat approval expires. Jacobson pointed out that they had indicated that there was no problem - that they could have it done with the extension given to them last year. Tom asked for a copy of the agreement. Bennett said there has been no agreement made up. Greer said the agreement sent to George shortly after the meeting last year was a draft sent for comments in order to refine the agreement. Greer said George and Duane (Bitney) have had the agreement for a year and have not been to FRDO to talk about it as of yet. Tom said he was under the assumption that was the agreement. He said about a month to a month and a half ago, they did contact Jonathan and asked him exactly what he wanted. He told them to draw something up like a preliminary September 19, 1989 (Continued) plat showing what the site will look like upon final design. This is what they have prepared. This is based on a design with the golf course included with the lots around it and is what they hope to do in the future. It has been reduced from 800 some lots to approximately 530. There has been some question regarding a park. Bennett said he knew that Duane has been over talking to Jonathan about substituting other parkland for that. Chairman Gipe continued this meeting to October 4, 1989 at 2:00 P.M. George asked how a person can set a time frame on the phasing. Gipe said he did not see how he could set a time frame on it. Bennett felt a time frame has to be set. George said it was his understanding that what they were, basically, looking at was an overall master plan so that when they come back with a phase, the process required for approval for the specific phase would be completed. He asked if he was correct in his understanding. Bennett said yes. But, if they do not meet the October 5th deadline, they will again have to go through public hearings, etc. George felt they need some explanation on the phasing agreement. Bennett stated that in the meeting of October, 5, 1988, Jonathan said he would work with George in coming up with an agreement on final approval for a phase -in agreement. George and Tom said they have spoken to Jonathan several times this summer. Gipe asked if a request for extension is needed with George submitting it rather than Duane. Bennett said, "Not for extension...because the deadline is October 5th. All they need to do is go over and get with Jonathan and get a phasing agreement for the Planning Office to review and have everything done and available by the continuation meeting of the 4th. If that happens, then they have met everything - and if the Commissioners approve it - they approve i t . " Tom asked David if the copy of the agreement he has is what they are looking for or if there is a problem with it. Greer explained, "You cannot extend the preliminary plat without a subdivision improvements agreement and that is what we are looking for." Bennett said a meeting has to be set between Tom, George, Greer and Jonathan very quickly to determine what is needed. Greer pointed out that the agreement Tom referred to is the draft agreement sent out for comment and no one has commented on it yet. Tom said he did not have any problem with the drafted agreement and this is the agreement that George and Duane have been working with. Commissioner Adkins: "I am going to say something because I am new. I understand where you are coming from, because all of this is new to me. Dave knows what he is supposed to do - that is his job. But, for the people out there, I think they really need to have it explained to them what they are expected to do." Bennett: "Well, it was at the last meeting a year ago." Commissioner Adkins: "But, obviously they didn't understand." Bennett: "Because they were to get together with Jonathan and get the agreement put together. It didn't happen." Chairman Gipe said if the drafted agreement satisfies everyone, bring it back to the Commissioners and they will take a look at it. Printing Bid for Consideration/Treasurer Present were Chairman Gipe, Commissioners Jacobson and Adkins, Assistant Bennett and Clerk Stratton. Low bidder for the requested forms from the Treasurer's Office was Insty Prints, Kalispell in the amount of $780.50. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins to award the bid to Insty Prints of Kalispell in the amount of $780.50 for the forms requested by the Treasurer's Office. Commissioner Jacobson seconded the motion. Aye -Jacobson, Gipe and Adkins. Motion carried unanimously. Board Appointments Present were Chairman Gipe, Commissioners Jacobson and Adkins, Assistant Bennett and Clerk Stratton. Motion to appoint Roger Hopkins as the Health Board representative to the Refuse Board replacing Frank Lockridge and to appoint Julie Marshall on the Health Board to replace Frank Lockridge was made by Commissioner Jacobson and seconded by Commissioner Adkins. Clerk Stratton asked if we are reaffirming the appointment or appointing Roger to the Refuse Board as the Health Board representative. Commissioner Adkins said they (the Health Board) haven't made the appointments officially in a meeting yet, she thought they are going to do it Thursday. Bennett said the TED SCHWINDEN. GOVERNOR STATE OF I',ONTANA December 7, 1982 Mr. Duane Bitney P.O. Box 1119 Kalispell, MT 59901 Mr. George Schultz 1302 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT 5990.1 Re: Glacier Village Green Preliminary Environmental Review Gentlemen: COGSW ELL BUILDING HELENA, MONTANA 59620 We have received Mr. Bitney°s letter of November 28, 1982 regarding your commitment to limit growth within the Glacier Village Green development to 40 units within any calendar year. This commitment would be binding until the referenced road and bridge improvements near the development are made. This rate of growth (40 units within a calendar year) is in accordance with your original projection of 20 years for complete development of the 800 total lots. This rate of growth is also within the recommendations of the Evergreen Water District. We have considered the comments (pro and con) that were received regarding the preliminary environmental review. No justification for preparation of an environmental impact statement could be made. The major consideration, as you know, was the present traffic conditions in the area (primarily on West Evergreen Drive and Whitefish Stage Road) . Road improvements in the area appear to be priorities for the county. By limiting the rate of growth in the development, you have helped minimize the impacts of increased traffic until the necessary road and bridge improvements are made. Future phases of the development will, of course, be reviewed with the 40-unit limit. in mind (until road improvements are made). The proposed sewage treatment methods will also be reviewed closely. The 12 lots originally proposed were approved for septic tank-drainfield installations because the necessary soil and groundwater requirements were met.' tecause groundwater is relatively close to the surface (between 6 and 10 feet), the site is not a good one for numerous on -site sewage treatment systems. We understand that you do plan to connect to the City of Kalispell public sewage system as soon as possible. This is a very important consideration for continued development of this site, as you are aware. AN rO(JAI OPPpRtnr.`TY FvPIOYER Mr. Duane Bitney Mr. George Schultz Pag e 2 December 7, 1982 In conclusion, it has been determined that no EIS is necessary for Glacier Village Green. Future phases of the development will, of course, be reviewed at the state and county levels for the normal subdivision review procedures. If you should have a question, please call. Thank you for your assistance during the review. Sincerely, Jim Melstad Sanitary Engineer Wat6r Quality Bureau Environmental Sciences Division JM:ca cc: - Flathead County Health Department - Richard Gebhardt, Attorney, Ronan Part - 3 Staff Report "Fairway Park" A report for public hearing for the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, March 25, 1980. I. General Cinsiderations A. Specifications 1. Date of application: March 5, 1980 2. a) Owner: George Schulz Kal-Mont Dair 755-9650 1302 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT 59901 b) Developer: George SchulzDuane Bitney 530 6th Ave. E. Kalispell, MT 59901 257-623 3. Surveyor: 4. Planner: Taylor, Thon, Thompson & Peterson Bruce Lutz Box 1040 Kalispell, MT 59901 257-7125 5. Engineer: Thomas Dean & Hoskins Inc. 3 Sunset Plaza Kalispell, MT 59901 755-5246 6. Location: North of West Evergreen Drive, south of Mission Village Properties, East of Whitefish Stage and West of Whitefish River. Tract 1,2A,4&5 in Section 32, T29N,R21W. 7. Size: 284.652 Acres / 800 lots / 3500 sq.ft. minimun lot size. B. Intended uses: Listed as follows by acreage: 80.31 acres in lots 43.6 acres in roads & right-of-ways 65.85 acres in 18 hole golf course 18.74 acres in park area 37.56 acres in open space 2.77 acres in club area 1. Utillities a) water: community water system b) sewer: community sewer system c) electricity: Flathead Electric d) gas: available from Montana Power e) telephone: soon available from Northern Telephone f) TV Cable: Available from Teleprompter C. Relation of Established Planning: Plan amendment request has been submitted in conjunction with this applicaiton, see Part -1 of this report. II. Staff Investigation and Remarks. A. Effects on Public Health and Safety. 1. Natural Hazards a) Flooding: the area in question is not indicated in 100 year flood plain as per the F.I.A./H.U.D. flood districts for Kalispell and Flathead County. Areas within the site are subject to seasonal ponding in corelation with elevational changes in the Whitefish River. b) Fault zones: N/A c) High Water Tables: S.C.S. soils information indicates that a majority of the site is subject to ground water at 3 feet below the surface. No onsite testing has been conducted as of this writing. Testing is expected to begin in April -May and continue through June -July. 2. Artifical Hazards a) Traffic: the site is accessed by West Evergreen Drive (conditions noted in Part - 1) , at present this road has been deemed hazardous by the Flathead Safety Council primarily during winter months on the hill which ties with Whitefish Stage. Evergreen Drive to the East crosses the Whitefish River via a narrow wooden bridge. No existing traffic counts are available for these routes in this general area. The general area has the potential to generate approximatly 20,000 vehicle trip per day when maximum development is achieved under the existing plan. Fairway Park, at 100% development could generate approximatly 4,000 vehicle trips per day. West Evergreen will be the only access route to the site. b) Air Hazards: none known/ none anticipated c) Noise: none at present/none anticipated d) High Voltage Line: N/A e) High Pressure Gas Lines: N/A B. Effects on Wildlife and Habitat Due to location and lack of input from Fish, Wildlife & Parks, this section not evaluated. C. Effects on Natural Environment. 1. Water Sources: a) surface: the Whitefish River follows the eastern boundry of the proposal. Design consideration include the designation of the river bank as common open space, with no alterations of land or vegetation to occur. Storm runoff is to be controlled through site engineering in the development to limit advise effects upon the river. b) ground: ground water condition have been noted previously. Adverse affects of the development are to be limited through the utilization of a community sewer system. A community water system will be extended to service this development. The use of additional wells is no known at this time. If additional wells are required by the Water Resourses Division, Department of Natural Resourses. 2. Soils: a) Engineering Properties: paramount limitations are due to Bound water condition which exist on the site. with additional engineerina studies, it is believed that these limitations will be found to less than those indicated by the S.C.S. soil survey. b) Erodibility: no hazards indicated. 3. Topography: the site is basically flat with an abrupt ridge of 90 feet along the Western edge of the proposal. This steep area is also included in the common open space plan. Topographic changes in the site range from 12 to 24 feet above the normal elevation of the Whitefish River. 4. Historical & Archeological Feature: None know 5. Vegetation: The site is conposed of 80% craps, 10% wild grasses, -5% trees (the bluff face along the west boundary). 6. Aesthetics: "The setting of the development is such that surrounding views of the mountains will be preserved and the majority of homes on the bluff will focus over and beyond the new development 90 feet below. The development sill be screened from the east by (riparian) vegetation." Developer's Environmental assessment. D. Effects on Taxation: 1. To the property owners: at present the site pays a tax of $3.50 per ac./$875 per year. As development and improvements occur the realestate taxable value will increase to approximatly $1000 per lot plus the market value of any perminant structures or other improvements. Although the units placed within the devlopment are to be placed on perminant foundations they will in all likelyhood be taxed seperatly from the "park". At 100% development the taxable value of the lots would reach $800,000 and under current mil levys would generate $14,500 in District #5 revenues. 2. To adjacent lands: these land are taxed based on size, use and market values. If these factors do not change, taxable values should not be affected by this development. 3. Difference to the County: see item 1 above, requirements for additional servieces by the County have not been assessed at this writing. ENV I RONMENTAL AS SESSHE1JT Statement of Information The following statement is made and submitted with the preliminary plat of a proposed land subdivision in Flathead County, Montana, under the provisions of Section 11-3863, paragraph 4, items a, b, c, and d of Title 11, Chapter 38, RCM 1947. Name, Address, Telephone Number of Landoamer. 1302 Utiitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT ---755-9650 Name, Address, Telephone Number of Developer. George Schulze & Duane Bitney 530 6th Ave. East Kalispell, `1T 257-6203 Name, Address, Telephone Number of Individual(s) or Firm(s) Providing Necessary Information. Ta, for Toon Tjomnsnri Peterson Box 1040 Kalispell MT Plione 257-7125 Bruce Lutz: Landscape Architect Signature of the landowner or responsible official of the company or corporation offering the land for sale, attesting to the validity of the information provided. (date) Feb. 27, 19030 ac PART 1. 1. Surface beater Describe every body or stream of surface water, natural or artificial, whether on the land directly involved or not, that may be affected by the proposed development. a) name, if known, of the water body 1--hitefi.sh River b) approximate size of water body 50 to 100 Ft. Wide Stream c) water is present seasonally or all year d) kind and amount of use it presently provides- recreation. 1rriaa- tion, etc. Limited recreation and irrigation e) proximi ty of proposer' bui ldinos minimum of 100 feet sewer systems 150 Ft. roads 150 Ft. f) any existing or proposed streambank or shoreline disturbance: NO location - amount - reason q) describe any nroposed erosion or sedirentation control measures, Temporary construction sedimentation C'Z retention basins u'ill be provided to eliminate the incidence of sedimentation of water courses. h) fully describe any proposed fi 11 ing or construction of water courses, di tches , or ravines, The project is designed to preserve existing surface drainage routes to drainage features such as Vnitefis'? Diver to the east and the constructed pond on the west. 0 describe proposed method of water channel road crossings: 1) bridge - location, size, construction . -1/A 2) culvert - location, size Culverts and (or) other drainage structures will be located in accordance with storm sewage engineering by Thomas, Dean £, Hoskins on the final plat. -2- t} describe the location. size. method of any proposed drainage of low or wet areas. Generally, lot areas and road areas will be elevated as deemed necessary in engineering studies. Low area of site will require extensive regrading. k) is the area within the 100 year flood plain? ''?o (See FIA Maps) 1) indicate the years) and maximum water depth of any known f l ood i n c, on the land involved. Property is not located in the flood plain. 2. r: roun d Va to r a) depth to water table: max. m� min. 0 yu , date deter- mined how determined "_aLL.Surveys b) if wells are to be used, what well depth and how many wells will be necessary to serve the proposed use? The project will most likely connect into new water systern which is being utilized by the Fairway Boulevard Development. 3. Ai r a) describe the effect of the proposed development on air quality if the development is other than residential. Air quality will be mainly effected by increased automobile traffic. 4. Ceology a) describe in general terms the geology involved; bedrock, glacial till, alluvium, etc. The geology of the site is generally glacial drift which has been reworked through former alluvial processes. b) what is the proximity of known neoloaic hazards such as fault lines, earthquake epicenters, slides, etc.? NA