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