Staff Report/PUDREPORT T TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT.
City of Kal lespell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (40 )758-77 Fax( )7 -77
58
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Chris A. Iuu.lsli, City tanager
Ordinance 1380, Mountain view Plaza PUD Agreement
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2001
BACK GROUND: I TD: On February 20, 2001 the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney
to draft a Planned Unit Development Agreement PUD) with Cross yell Development Corporation based
on 31 Conditions of Approval. The 31 conditions placed on the fountain view Plaza development came
as a result of January 9, 201, Kalispell City -County Planning Board public hearing and input by the City
Council and administration.
Included in the attached PLED are each of the 31 conditions with the exception of conditions #5 and #30.
You will finch each of the conditions within the following sections of the agreements:
Condition #
PUD Agreement Section
1 & #2
2.01 A
Condition #
PUD Are ment Section
#3
2.2
#20
2.01
#4
1.1 , 3.04, 3., 3.06
#21
3.10
#5
Not legally advisable
#22
3.11
#6
3.07
#23
2.03D
3.06
#24
2.03
#8
3.04 D
#25
2.01 D
#9
3.02 B
#26
3.08 O
#10
3.02 E
#27
2.01 G
#111 125 13, 145 & 15
3.0
#28
2.01 P
#16
3.03
#29
2.01 C
17
3.08 F
#30
Completed prior to
#18
3.08 H
drafting the PUD
## 19
2.03 C
#31
The PUD Agreement
Page 1 of 2
49
As you may recall, the staff was instructed to ensure future retail expansion could be done within the City
ofKalispell with attention to duality infrastructure and aesthetics. Sections 1.1 , 3.04, 3.05, 3.06 and 3.07
of the PUD ensure that the infrastructure necessary to service the development meets all City of Kalispell
design and construction standards. Sections 2. 01 C and 2, 01 F secure, through bonds, that infrastructure and
improvements necessary for the project will be completed, at the developer's cost, no later than May 5,
Zoo. The PUD Agreement also ensures duality landscaping, building design and construction materials
that are based on a "'lodge/chalet" design.
Based on taxable values received by the Department of Revenue on similar stores in Missoula and in our
valley, I am estimating the taxable value, at build out, to b $685,000 (Horne Depot 220,000; Target
$175,000; xrocery Store $100,000 and five smaller pads of Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Applebees etc.
$190,000). Remember that this build out is unlikely to take place immediately. used on this information,
I am estimating that in the first year the development will generate $25,135 and at build out it should
generate $78,261 $ ,00 114.25 mills).
The Mountain view project will further secure Kalispell's place as the valley's business and retail center.
We should not forget that a substantial amount of money is removed from this valley by those who choose
to drive to Spokane and Missoula in order to shop in some of these same stores. Also remember that we
entered into this process with the relief that the retailers included in this development were likely to be
approved somewhere within our valley (most likely outside of the City in Flathead County). This
assumption is amplified by the fact that K-1 Mart, Wal-Mart, Shopl o and Costco have all been allowed to
develop outside of Kalispell. It is true that the net effect on jobs and tax revenue will be less than what is
developed specifically at Mountain view. There will be a transfer of some jobs and loss in taxable value
from other areas within the valley. However, I do believe that there will be an overall net increase of both
tax revenue and jobs. It should also be noted that Plum Creek and Dore Corporation, two major employers
in our region, are major suppliers of products to Horne Depot.
I encourage the City Council to approve ordinance 13 s. once approved, the staff will work hard to ensure
the success of the development while making sure that the PUD agreement is strictly adhered to.
CONIM N ATION: The City Council approve the attached Ordinance 13 80, which is a Planned Unit
Development Agreement between the City of Kalispell and Crosswell Development ITC.
FISCAL EFFECT'S: used on information given by the Department of Revenue I estimate Kalispell "
property tax impact not including assessments to be $25,000 in year one and $78,000 at build out.
ALTER ATI ES. As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully stbitt d,
Chris A. Kululsli
City Manager
Deport compiled March 14, 2001
Page 2 of 2
0
ORDINANCE NO. 1380
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY OWNED BY PACK AND Co.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF S AL I PELL , A
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That the Planned Unit Development proposed. by
CROSSWELL DEVELOPMENT LLC upon the real property described In
Exhibit "A", attached hereto, incorporated herein, and thereby
made a part hereof, is hereby approved, subject to
A Development Agreement, dated IF 2 0 01 ,
between CRDELL DEVELOPMENT LLC, PACK AND
COMPANY, and the CITY OF KAL I PE LL , Exhibit r, B 11 f
attached hereto, incorporated herein and thereby
made a part hereof.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect from and after
30 days of its passage by the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY of KALISPELL, 1 ONTANA , THIS 2ND DAY of APR I L , 2001.
ATTEST:
Theresa. White
City Clerk
:attsectwppdrswell.wpd 1
Wm. E . Bohars i
Mayor
'1'I��� ��(1�'il: l)l:l't)'1'
Flathead ei®al Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
January 24, 2001
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Crosswell Development, LLC, Planned Unit Development
Dear Chris:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of
January 9, 2001, and considered a request from Crosswell Development, LLC, for a PUD
to allow a large scale commercial development on property previously approved for the
development of a sports coliseum and retail development known as the "ValleyDome" and
then subsequently as the "Domesite." This application would effectively replace the
previously approved project with that which is being proposed as Mountain View Plaza
PUD. The property includes approximately 51 acres of land owned by Pack and Company
and nine acres owned by the Montana Department of Transportation for which Pack and
Company has a written agreement for exchange for like property located to the north.
Narda Wilson, with the Flathead Regional Development Office, presented a staff report
outlining the proposal and the issues related to the project. The staff recommended
approval of the proposal subject to the 31 conditions as outlined in the report.
At the public hearing, Mike Fraser stated the proposal would provide enhancement to the
entrance into the City of Kalispell. He asked for several modifications to the conditions.
Stan Beard, representing Crosswell Development, spoke in favor emphasizing the need for
additional square footage for signage. There were five others who spoke in favor of the
development.
Three people spoke against the proposal citing concerns of inadequate public information,
proposed signage being too large, traffic and other possible negative impacts.
A motion was made to adopt staff report KPUD-00-1 as findings of fact and to forward a
recommendation for approval of the project subject to the amended conditions. The
motion passed on a unanimous vote. The recommended conditions of approval are
outlined in Attachment A.
Crosswell Development, LLC PUD
January 25, 2001
Page 2 of 2
Please schedule this matter for consideration by the council at their February 5, 2001,
regular meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Narda
Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office at (406) 758-5980.
Sincerely,
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
re evens t
Pre i nt
GS/NW/dw
Attachments: Attachment A (conditions)
Staff Report KPUD-00-1 and application materials
Draft minutes from the 1 / 09 / 01 planning board meeting
c: w/Att Theresa White, City Clerk
c: w/o Att S.Beard, Crosswell Development, 2131 Sage Rd, Ste 380, Houston, TX
77506
Pack and Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901
M. Fraser, TD 8s H, 690 N. Meridian Rd., Ste 101, Kalispell, MT 59901
H: \FRDO/TRANS\KAL\2001 \KPUD-00-1
Crosswell Development, LLC PUD
January 25, 2001
Page 3 of 3
U_WVTOT19 O k
CO11DITIO11S OF APPROVAL FOR CROSSWELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE KALISPELL CITY COUNTYBOARD
JANUARY 9, 00
The Kalispell City -County Planning board is recommending the following conditions to the
Kalispell City Council for the above referenced planned unit development (PUD) request. A
public hearing was held on this matter at the January 9, 2001 planning board meeting.
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with application
submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same as indicated
on the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as modified by these
conditions.
3. That a Phase II environmental assessment of the site be completed prior to the detailed design
of the utilities.
4. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be designed
and installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards and shall
be subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public Works Department.
S. That access from the southern access road off of Highway 93 to the adjoining property to the
south should be available to accommodate future development on the property through the
execution of a development agreement and payment of a latecomers fee to the developer.
6. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Fire
Department for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code.
7. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation, irrigation and
maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free, dust -free area until such time
as that phase is fully developed.
8. That the necessary easements be obtained for the extension of water and sewer services to the
site.
9. That a comprehensive traffic impact study be completed which identify all expected traffic
impacts and proposals for mitigation, and that appropriate approach permits be obtained
from the Montana Department of Transportation and the City ef Kalispell.
10. That the northernmost accesses along Highway 93 near Ole's Country Store beep be
subject to the recommendations of the traffic impact study.
Crosswell Development, LLC PUD
January 25, 2001
Page 4 of 4
12. That trees be placed within the parking lots at a rate of one tree per every 14 parking spaces
as indicated in the application narrative.
13. Street trees shall be placed at 40 foot intervals which are a minimum of a two and a quarter
inch caliper at planting along both sides of the internal roadways except where they
immediately abut a parking lot island or planter or abut building fronts.
14. That the landscaping along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive include street trees placed at
50 foot intervals which are a minimum of a two and a quarter inch caliper at planting and a
minimum three foot tall hedge or shrubs between the parking lots and the roadways.
15. That a landscape pod shall be placed at the end of each parking aisle and the parking
medians which includes a minimum of one street tree at a minimum of a two and a quarter
inch caliper along with shrubs or other greenery.
16. The overall landscape plan shall be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and Recreation
Director regarding the exact size and location of the plantings and species lists.
17. That pedestrian walkways be provided as indicated on the site plan that provide a continuous
and connected system with the existing walkways along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive
including a sidewalk on both sides of the main entrance road.
18. That the landscape areas within the site be constructed as proposed that includes
landscaping, walkways and gazebos.
4j9: That the use of retaining walls in excess of four feet tall, if Possible, be avoided, but rather- the
implementation of landseaped ter-r-aeing be used te make the transition in areas with the
steepest grades.
20. The list of materials and exterior building treatments that was part of the application for the
final development of the buildings be included in the covenants and development agreement
with the City.
21. That the east face of the large buildings not be used for advertising, display of corporate
colors or logos and shall be treated with the approved list of building materials and colors.
22. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes attraetive standard lighting fixtures with
downward directed light and a type and level of lighting of exeeeding what is appropriate for
its purpose.
23 All signs shall , ply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordi -.nee
24. That a comprehensive sign plan be submitted which indicates an integrated design of lettering
and materials. Two main entry signs shall be used which may be located at the property
boundary and not to exceed 270 square feet per face nor 28 feet in height. All other signs
shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Freestanding signs shall be limited to the
proposed monument signs for the businesses along Highway 93. The use of oversized signs
garish or corporate colors, trademarks, or logos on the buildings shall be avoided as a primary
means of advertising.
25. That the covenants state uses allowed within the development shall not include those which
require areas for the display of large merchandise such as new and used automobile sales,
Crosswell Development, LLC PUD
January 25, 2001
Page 5 of 5
manufactured home sales, recreational vehicle sales and lumbers. This would not
preclude incidental events associated with the other businesses on the site.
26. That the three large buildings proposed for the eastern portion of the site shall not exceed 38
feet in height, with an additional seven foot allowance for the screening of roof mounted
equipment and as an architectural fagade.
27. That the refuse areas be adequately screened from public view.
28. That the covenants be modified to include some language regarding the maintenance of
common areas within the development and which grant cross easement access between the
lots and throughout the development.
29. That the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding for the
proposed infrastruet re and improvements public water and sewer or other acceptable means
of insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by the
developer on each phase as the project develops.
30. That the removal and / or relocation of the batch plant, associated equipment and
warehouses located on the NuPac and the Montana Department of Transportation be
accomplished prior to the eeeupaney-ef any eommereial building(s) on the site occupancy of
Phase II.
31. That Domesite LLC / Pack and Company relinquish their interest in the existing development
agreement with the City prior to the execution of a development agreement for this project.
32. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based on terms
and conditions included in the planned unit development.
H: FRDO/TRANS/KAL/2001\KPUD00-1
' Stevens said they could forward the conditions to the City
Attorney but he was not in favor of including them. Rice,
agreed to pass them along, but not include them in the motion.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1
opposed.
CROSSWELL A request by Crosswell Development for a PUD at Hwy 93 and
DEVELOPMENT, LLC. W. Reserve Drive for an approximately 515,000 square foot,
PLANNED UNIT large scale retail development.
DEVELOPMENT
OTION Hines moved and Heinecke seconded to limit public comment
to 3 minutes. On a roll call vote there were 5 opposed and 4 in
favor. The motion to limit public comment failed.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office,
gave a presentation on staff report KPUD-00-1, a zone change
request by Crosswell Development for Pack and Company to
allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would replace
the existing Domesite PUD. The PUD would function as an
overlay for the B-2, General Commercial, zoning designation
and would replace the previous development proposal. The
new development proposal includes three large commercial
pads that contain between 127,337 and 148,663 square feet
located to the east of the site and five smaller commercial pads
that contain between 18,000 and 24,200 square feet located
along the west side for a total of approximately 513,246 square
feet of commercial development. The property contains
approximately 60 acres of land.
Wilson stated it was a phase development with 8 phases, to be
built over 12 years, depending on the market, and subdivided
so they could be conveyed separately. There were several
considerations by staff; the deviation from zoning and
subdivision regulations, and the building height exceeding the
maximum at 38 feet, with an additional 7 feet for rooftop
mounted devices. Signs at the main entrance were proposed to
be 28 feet in height, and would exceed the 200 square foot
maximum. Other considerations were the provision of open
space, including landscaping and irrigation. Staff
recommended approval subject to 31 conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the proposal.
PROPONENTS Mike Fraser, Thomas, Dean, & Hoskins engineering consultant,
spoke in favor of the proposal stating that the proposed PUD
would give the City a definable, concrete product. They
prepared a plan, which they believed would provide
enhancement to the entrance into the City of Kalispell in
consideration of the neighborhood plan across the road. The
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 28
PUD provides public comment so it could be incorporated into
the overall project. He said the project deviated significantly
from the Domesite PUD by proposing less commercial area and
a component for open space. He said the Domesite received a
major variance for an entrance sign of 1025 square feet, plus
250 square feet of reader board. They were asking for 270
square feet per face. He said the sign would be very attractive,
made of rock and timber. The overall impact of the project, in
total, would be significantly less than what was approved for
the Domesite. He asked for the opportunity to proceed with a
quality development. Fraser stated 20% of the project was
open space with color -coordinated buildings that would blend
in with the area. He said that parking lot maintenance would
be addressed in the covenants. Fraser asked for several
modifications in the conditions; #9, 10, 11, 19, 23, 24, and 28.
He stated the PUD was in conformance with the Master Plan
and asked that he be allowed rebuttal testimony.
Sipe asked how many jobs would be created by the project and
Fraser answered that all levels of jobs and wages would be
available. A good estimate would be 1,000 to 1500 for the
whole site.
Stevens asked why condition # 19 was changed to read, the use
of retaining walls, where possible, be avoided. Fraser said they
were expensive. He said there were situations where they
could not be avoided, however, he didn't want it to be
interpreted as being prohibited.
Stan Beard, representing Crosswell Development, Houston,
Texas, spoke in favor of the project stating he did not want to
rehash Fraser's comments, but wanted to repeat the points
that were serious to them. Condition #11, he said putting a
25-foot driveway in would eliminate some parking. He felt
certain traffic flow was well taken care of. Condition. #22, he
said they would like to propose a lighting plan that was
comprehensive, reduce light pollution, and uses contemporary,
commonly used fixtures. Condition #23 was a major issue and
he passed around a sign proposal. Beard stated they could not
get around the fact that their customers relied on signage, for
I.D. and lifeblood, signage and parking was like the holy grail.
He asked for 20 feet over the allowable square footage to make
sure the larger guys got the signage they required, while
smaller ones still had signage. He said signage had become
more of an issue because the big boxes were set 700-800 feet
off of Hwy 93. He added that they fully expected to sit down
with the City and go through a comprehensive sign plan. He
said they made a lot of concessions with 20 acres of green
space. He respected that this was a big entrance into Kalispell,
but his back was against the wall.
Blair Warehime, Home Depot site coordinator, West, Covina,
California, emphasized the north side parking and said they
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 28
knew about circulation in their driveways. He said they
required developers to construct the parking lot a certain way,
wider than normal with larger isle ways. His said this plan met
geometric requirements. Signage was a major issue. He
passed out a colored illustration of the store and said that
scale was of serious importance, it had to fit the building in
height and front elevations. He also noted the building set
back from Hwy 93 900-1000 feet and they considered the
speed of the highway. Signage was consistent throughout their
stores, as was lighting. To keep maintenance down they don't
have different fixtures on different sites.
Van Natta asked and Warehime answered that lighting would
be consistent in the entire parking lot.
Stevens asked and Warehime answered that Home Depot did
an extensive study on parking ratios and he believed the
parking would meet peak time usage.
Hines noted that Home Depot was the largest single purchaser
of Plum Creek products. Mr. Warehime could not confirm that.
Jim Lynch, 430 Lake Hills Lane, President of Pack and
Company, said he reviewed the information of Thomas, Dean
and Hoskins and thought it was a good change from the
current use of the property and a far cry from the gravel pit.
He said he was pleased to see a project like this with Columbia
Falls Aluminum cut backs and the closing of mills. He thought
it would provide increased taxes for schools, additional jobs,
including construction jobs during the process of building and
for many years after. He said it was a welcome change and a
tremendous benefit.
Jay Wentz, La Jolla, California, with Hamstead Partners
development team, lend general support for the project. He
thought it gave the City and County an opportunity for
development standards with traffic and building design as the
northern corridor experienced growth. He understood there
were issues left to discuss. Looking ahead, he believed it was
good for the area and urged the board to consider the long-
term impacts of not only the development but the technology
park across the street.
Russ Crowder, 2860 Lower Lost Prairie, represented
Montanans for Property Rights. He said the north was heavily
residential and this project, if approved, would provide easy
shopping and access to the residents now and in the future.
He said it was a great benefit to keep residents from having to
travel great distances and it prevented sprawl. He thought it
represented smart growth. He said the project would increase
the tax base and help resolve and lower taxes for citizens. He
asked the board to approve the project with the recommended
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 28
amendments made by the engineering consultants.
Bill Goodman, 50 2nd Street East, said he was not making
money on the project and he didn't live next to it. The issue,
he said, was that it was an appropriate use for the location and
it made more sense than all the rest. He said it had good
transportation access, it's closer to the core with increasing
density and he supported it.
Tim Prince, 475 Cayuse Lane, business owner and resident,
supported the project saying it was a reasonable use of the
property and a definite improvement. There was obviously a
need to fuel economic growth and, without question, when you
can get goods at a lower price it begins the recycling process of
money. He said he had concerns about the lighting. He said
he could appreciate the importance of lighting and didn't think
it should be a blockbuster, but two, 20 square foot excesses in
the big sky area, he thought Flathead Valley could spare that.
He said the context of the whole was important, for example,
glaring or muted lights. He didn't think it should be an eye
stopper, but done in good taste.
OPPONENTS Mayre Flowers, Citizens For A Better Flathead, spoke neutrally.
She thought it was unfortunate that they were trying to pit
community members against each other and suggested as the
community grew, that a process that preceded the public
hearing to provide informal dialog was necessary, like an open
house for the public by the developer. She said she did not
have detailed public comment and was not taking a position,
because information was lacking, but said she was following
the project closely and would be coming to the City Council
with additional comments. She was encouraged this was being
brought forth as a PUD as it authored the ability to provide
clear detail, but needed tightening up. She said some items
had been detailed and others needed to be clarified; lighting
and signs being proposed, etc. She felt it was important the
City and MDOT work together and recommended a cumulative
study on State land with specific comments in regard to
infrastructure, water and sewer and traffic. She thought that
information needed to be brought to the public so they could
comment as well. In reference to condition #3, a more
comprehensive storm water plan for the area was needed. She
believed condition #4 was inadequate to proceed with economic
impacts, they needed to look at studies that look at the job
shifting and retail shifting that takes place when a large retail
facility comes into a community, which would require an
analysis of economic impact to existing businesses. She
quoted statistics of similar local businesses, which summarized
as a total of 132 million dollars in sales, having 742 workers
with annual wages of 21,700 dollars. She said these were
significant economic figures for the Valley and it was important
they were brought up and looked at. Flowers stated that
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 28
clearly a large scale, big box retail development, needed to be
looked at for the nature of shifting brought about. She said
there were no comparisons of existing retail space to
population. For example, the large, retail shopping on the
outskirts of Evergreen, would it accommodate retail expansion
of the valley. She said more extensive information needed to be
provided to the public.
Dale Luhman, 169 Trailridge, spoke against the proposal
stating reasons of traffic congestion, Hwy 93 impacts, dust
pollution, noise pollution and the negative impacts of quality of
life. He said the current traffic figures would increase,
approaching 50,000 cars on average daily. He said it was the
most congested intersection of the state and peak times
seemed to be getting worse. He added that a retail center
would suggest a lot of congestion from 8 am to 10 pm. He was
also concerned about the proposed building height, the lack of
information to the public and he expected all impacts to be
identified relating to MDOT and Hwy 93. He said that without
knowing what the changes were this was all premature. He
argued that visually, with thousands of parking spaces and box
stores, a gravel pit looked better with a view of the Swan
Range. He added that non-commercial zoning would make a
rough transition. He was concerned about effects on water,
hazardous waste, and ground water contamination. He
commented on the air relating to traffic and wondered what the
measurements would be to meet clean air standards. In
relation to condition #4 he stated adverse impacts of increased
traffic, diminished property values, poorer quality of life, traffic
delays, pollution, and noise. He said there was not enough
information available to the public and his biggest dilemma
was how to protect the neighborhood. He urged the planning
board to solicit more information about water, sewer and traffic
impacts.
Corina Weldenbach stated the development would change the
north side of town and she didn't like it. She said there were
old, abandoned box stores in town they could use and asked
what would happen to the open space, where you can see the
mountains, when huge stores and huge signs go in. She said
building stores so far from Kalispell made it a less walk -able
city, similar to Evergreen, which was not beautiful. She said it
made her sad and other people had economic interests. She
asked the board to look at the bigger picture and take a more
personal interest, suggesting they go up to Lone Fine and look
out on valley. She asked they imagine what it would be like if
it was filled with buildings. She thought it was sprawl. If the
project was approved she asked for 3 things; they extend the
bike path into Kalispell, so it's accessible through human run
transportation, they make the buildings as low as existing
zoning, and they require that signs do not block the scenery.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 28
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
OTION (MAIN) Mann moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report
KPUD-00-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell
City Council that the PUD overlay be approved subject to 31
conditions as recommended by staff.
MOTION (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Hines seconded to delete "and the city of
Kalispell" from condition #9.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens said he was trying to avoid overlapping jurisdictions
and suggested a single point of contact. Van Natta said they
may have to deal with both if both are involved. It was pointed
out that MDOT signed permits and reviewed traffic studies.
Garberg spoke against the motion stating the City of Kalispell
was represented by the council and the State governed itself.
Van Natta suggested there may be aspects at the City level that
they were not aware of. He thought the State had primary
jurisdiction but the City was involved.
Mann said the City was involved because of the impacts of
DNRC across the street for things such as streetlights and he
thought the City should be involved in the discussion.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed with 4 in favor and 5
against.
MOTION (AMENDED) Garberg moved and Sipe seconded to amend condition # 10 to
read, "subject to recommendation of the traffic impact study".
BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta thought MDOT had the final call. Stevens agreed
and said the concern was that they were asking for a
comprehensive study and then, in the next condition, asking
for an access to be eliminated before the State and City studied
the access. He thought it was premature.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1
opposed.
OTION (AMENDED) Rice moved and Mann seconded to strike condition # 11.
BOARDDISCUSSION Heinecke said he didn't like the idea of the long traffic isles, if
you miss a spot you have to drive all the way around. He liked
the idea of having a mid connector, but was not married to the
idea.
Mann thought the developers had more experience in
developing parking lots than the planning board and thought
they should be able to do what they want.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 28
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1
opposed.
MOTION (AMENDED) Hines moved and Pierce seconded to amend condition # 19 to
read, the use of retaining walls in excess of 4 feet tall be
avoided "where possible".
BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked what they would use for retaining walls and Fraser
answered they were considering a keystone block. Rice
suggested they add decorative retaining walls so it was not a
concrete wall. Fraser asked if they could leave that to the
designers and developers to work out.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
0TION (AMENDED) Heinecke moved and Mann seconded to strike condition #22.
BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta thought it didn't need to be decorative, but needed
to be downward directed lighting opposed to skyward lighting.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed with 3 in favor and 6
opposed.
OTIO (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Garberg seconded to amend condition #22 to
read "standard, downward directed lighting".
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens asked if Wilson wanted to include any other language
and she said no, it was fine. Heinecke agreed. Garberg
mentioned that Mr. Prince asked for an adjustment of the
lighting. He asked if it met with the standards of the
corporation and Fraser said it would work.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
BOARD DISCUSSION Beard requested the board consider a variance, up to 270
square feet, and 28' in height at the property boundary for
their pylon signs.
Stevens concluded that they were talking about legalized, spot
zoning, to take a particular area and design it. In this case, he
said, unlike a B-2 they have a total plan. To make that plan
work it requires the extra footage on the sign. To make the
PUD conform to the standard zoning maybe those sign
regulations are appropriate, where they might not be for a B-2.
He said they were talking about between a 20 and 70 square
foot difference.
Wilson called upon P.J. Sorenson for clarification. Sorenson
stated it was not accurate to say an extra 20 feet. He said
zoning ordinance stated, for every zone except general
residential there is a table for freestanding signs with limits on
the height and amount of square footage per face based on the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 28
distance from the right of way. Based on the proposal from the
developers they would be at the right-of-way line. Sorenson
said the right-of-way line was limited to 15 feet in height and
60 square feet per sign face. With the comprehensive plan they
could increase it to 75 square feet per sign face. He said they
were really talking about an extra 200 square feet per face,
which was 3 1/2 times larger than what should be allowed. He
said that if they moved the sign back 51 feet from the right of
way, instead of right at the line, they could say 28 feet is the
maximum allowed and 200 or with the comprehensive plan,
250 square feet is allowed.
Stevens asked if there was something objectionable about the
size of their signs and asked Sorenson to cut to the chase. He
said that what the regulations said was irrelevant because it
was a PUD.
Sorenson said if they wanted a good default there were PUD
provisions in the sign ordinance. He said it specifically limits it
to one freestanding or wall sign per developed use with a limit
of 24 square feet per sign and 6 feet above natural grade. He
said the general provisions of the B-2 zone provided for
shopping centers and lots containing multiple businesses. He
added that sign area calculations were based on the building's
frontage. With a shopping center you multiply the frontage by
3.5 for the first 200 feet and 1.5 after that.
Stevens asked how the Valley Dome got such a large sign and
Wilson stated that staff recommended against it. She said the
reason it was finally granted was because the applicants were
able to convince the City Council that because of the nature of
the business and advertising events like hockey games and
concerts, a large, animated sign was something they needed.
She also pointed out that PUD regulations stated that a
deviation from the zoning should serve some public interest or
provide some mitigation and it was staff's position that a larger
sign did not serve the public interest it merely served the
interest of the applicant. She didn't think the additional
advertising was necessary.
Garberg pointed out that it was stated that the sign was critical
to the project.
Sorenson compared other signs in the County such as Wal
Mart; total sign area 432 square feet for the entire property and
said Kmart, ShopKo, and Office Max were the same way.
Stevens said it was an aesthetic matter and there was a
tremendous advantage to having a readable sign. He said we
were all in it together.
Wilson said the point came up because there were inaccuracies
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 28
in saying it was 20 feet beyond what would otherwise be
allowed, when actually it was much more.
Stevens said it did not comply with the B-2 Zoning Regulations.
Hines said it could be eliminated by taking Mountain View
Plaza off the top and leaving the various store locations the
same size.
Wilson noted they were missing the point. A 28 foot height and
250 square foot sign would only be allowed with a 51 foot set
back. As proposed at the property boundary there would be a
15 foot height limit and a 75 square foot sign, so it was not a
20 square foot deviation, it was a 200 square foot deviation.
Sipe said the stores were 20 feet below ground level and traffic
may not be able to see the stores.
Stevens said if they could not demonstrate a health, safety or
general welfare reason to not let the developer go ahead with
the sign they thought would work than he was not interested in
talking about it anymore.
Rice disagreed. He thought they were being short sighted and
aesthetically it was too large of a sign. He thought it should
comply with the Kalispell City Ordinance for signage. He said
everyone would know where Home Depot was and we didn't
need big signs cluttering up the highway corridor to point out
where the stores were. He thought it should be kept as stated
in the original proposal.
Garberg said that was well and good but they were dealing with
a different set of circumstances. This was a special project
with stop gaps and approvals to make sure it was aesthetically
pleasing down the road. He said they knew what they needed
to make it work with parking lots and signage and the board
members were not experts. He thought it was a battle for the
architectural committees and the City Council down the road.
He felt they should give the developer the latitude to make a
proposal for what they wanted to do.
Rice disagreed saying whether or not they had a large sign
didn't compare to the technicality of traffic in the parking lot.
Van Natta was concerned that a pylon sign on the property line
would be in the vision of people trying to get on and off the
road. He said it might effect traffic vision because it came all
the way to the ground. He wondered if it was possible to move
it back some and still allow up to 200 square feet. He thought
they could have some latitude, since it was a PUD with
multiple tenants, to have something additional.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 28
Beard said their property line and right of way was 41 feet from
the road. He said he would go 51 feet from the road. He said
the other mitigating circumstance, if he goes much further
back, the 28 foot sign becomes a 15 foot sign, he loses that
much grade. Also, Home Depot told him that under no
circumstances would they take a sign any less than what
they've offered. He said they had backed up on a lot of issues
and this was as far back as they could go. He said he would
like the opportunity to work with the City on a comprehensive
sign plan that everyone could be happy with.
Stevens wanted to insert some language that was acceptable to
Home Depot and the City of Kalispell.
Beard wanted it stipulated that he get the pylon sign variance
that was requested. He said he was even more concerned that
a comprehensive sign plan with the City would, once again, be
him backing down. Eventually, he said, it's over. The 35 by 35
foot sign was approved because they said they needed it. He
needed a comprehensive sign package on the full project that
would address the City's problem and his concerns about
getting enough signs for everyone.
Hines asked if Beard backed down by creating muted colors
and a store front that blended with the theme set by Rosauers,
versus a typical box building like Ernst. He suggested they lost
some identity by getting rid of corporate colors and they were
trying to preserve some identity along the highway to get people
into the store. Hines asked Fraser if he had any input on
wording to get the issue moving forward.
Rice asked if there were cities where they had a Home Depot
with a more restrictive sign ordinance than Kalispell.
Warehime said there were a lot of cities, but they didn't sit
1000 feet off the road or 20 feet down. He said diminished or
restrictive signs happened in more suburban areas with more
of an arterial and 400 feet back. He said in Wyoming, Utah,
and Idaho he had not experienced that. He said Missoula sat
1000 feet back and they had a heck of a time distinguishing it,
and it wasn't down 20 feet into the ground.
MOTION (AMENDED) Pierce moved and Hines seconded to amend condition #23 to
read, a comprehensive sign plan be submitted, which indicates
an integrated design, not to exceed 270 square feet.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 2
opposed.
MOTION (AMENDED) Pierce moved and Mann seconded to amend condition #24 to
delete the word lumber yards
BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked if all their lumber was kept inside and it was stated
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 28
that yes, except when loading in the back and whatever goes
out the front.
Van Natta asked if they had to specify casinos. He said he
would like to amend the motion to not include casinos or those
which require areas that would display large merchandise.
Stevens suggested Pierce withdraw his motion, Mann withdraw
his second and they strike lumber yards and substitute it with
foreign casinos.
Fraser spoke against that saying that if a restaurant came in
with a full beverage license, casinos come with the license. He
said it was allowed in the B-2, it was not something they were
saying would happen, but it was not an inappropriate location
or use for the area.
Stevens asked and Wilson answered that unless it was part of
the initial application and anticipated under the proposal it
would have to go through the conditional use permit process.
Stevens said that if they didn't specifically prohibit them, a
proposal coming through for a casino would go through this
board and the city council. If it was an objectionable operation
they could deny the CUP. Wilson said she needed to speak to
the City Attorney to be certain.
Stevens said his recommendation was to strike the word
lumber yards from the condition, period. He added that Mr.
Van Natta could run it up the church at his next meeting and
do what he wished to do.
Rice added that they shouldn't side step an issue by saying the
City Council would take care of it. He said they were there to
make recommendations and deal with the issues that needed
to be dealt with.
Heinecke asked that they bring it up -at the end of the meeting.
He thought it was an issue that they did side step a lot.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was a discussion about amending condition 28,
regarding bonding as part of the subdivision requirements for
the proposed infrastructure and improvements.
Heinecke clarified that they wanted to limit the size of the
bonding to each phase of the project. Fraser agreed and
suggested the wording be; "bonding for proposed public
improvements shall be provided as part of subdivision". He
said they had to either build them or bond for them before they
could complete the subdivision, which would then complete
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 28
that phase.
Wilson expressed concerns that there were no guarantees
anything would go in besides Phase 1 regarding public or
private improvements. She added that condition 28, whether
through a bond or other acceptable means of collateral,
insured that public infrastructure would be put in place.
Hines believed that once the infrastructure was in the project
would be developed to it's maximum. Fraser said when they go
up the highway with water and sewer it would be big enough
for all of the development. Hines stated the City had a vested
interest. It was stated that if the bonding issue were that
simple they would agree to bonding up front.
It was argued that the condition stated infrastructure and
improvements. The question was, what were the
improvements.
Sipe suggested they were trying to bond each section as they
went. Fraser agreed and said it was all part of Phase 1 to
design it and the City had to say how big it was going to be
going up the highway. He said it would be big enough for
everything and once they got into the site they might realize
they need a roof over here and a sewer line extension over
there.
Sipe wanted to add language to say; provided by the developer
on each phase as the project develops.
Wilson asked why they would need to bond if it were as each
project developed.
Sipe said they could not get a 12 year bond.
OTION (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Hines seconded to amend condition 28 to read,
"the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as
proposed. Bonding for proposed public water and sewer, or
other acceptable means of insuring that the improvements will
be completed as proposed, shall be provided by the developer
on each phase as the project develops."
BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta was concerned about what would happen if the
water main shut down and the well wasn't developed until
phase 3. He said if the well didn't pan out they would end up
with a non -loop system. Fraser said they were intending an 8
inch loop around Home Depot as part of Phase 1. Van Natta
was concerned that if the system was down or a main broke on
the highway they would be high and dry without water. He
thought the other piece of the puzzle should be part of the
initial development, instead of waiting for phase 3.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 28
Fraser said that when they start into design that was one of the
issues that would be addressed.
Van Natta recommended that Public Works didn't issue a
building permit until they knew the well was going to work. He
said they needed to see the tests on it and Fraser said we all
do. He said they needed to know the water was there.
Stevens asked if it was an issue that would be addressed in the
development agreement. Fraser said yes, and through the City
of Kalispell Public Works and the building permit.
Van Natta asked about bonding and Fraser said that if it
became part of the Phase 1 improvements it would have to be
bonded to go under the condition. Van Natta stressed that the
question needed to be resolved, were they going to use the well
and was that going to be part of the system, or were they going
to loop a line in. Van Natta said it was in the old PUD and
thought it should be carried forward. Fraser said they would
like to get through the zoning, through the PUD change, with
assurances that they have a project and then put forth the
effort to answer those questions.
Sorenson stated that they were doing a disservice to the
developer if they ignored issues that needed to be dealt with
and pretended they would be dealt with one month from now.
He said the developer would rather know now what was to be
expected then to continue with issues that have already cost
them in bonding.
Stevens said the difficulty with that was that they couldn't give
them an answer now because they were only an advisory
board.
Fraser wanted to refer back to condition #6 regarding fire
access and review. It was pointed out that that answered the
previous question.
Rice said he would have a hard time voting for the amendment
without understanding the reasons why they needed bonding
for the whole PUD.
Heinecke said he agreed with Rice, but didn't want to shoot the
project in the foot.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 6 in favor and 3
opposed.
MOTION (AMENDED) Van Natta moved and Mann seconded to amend condition 29 to
read, the removal and or relocation of the batch plant,
associated equipment and warehouses located on the NuPac
and the Montana Department of Transportation be
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 28
accomplished prior to the occupancy of the Phase 2
development.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens asked what it did to staffs recommendation and
Wilson said it would change the requirement that relocation be
done prior to occupancy of Phase 1, they were saying prior to
occupancy of Phase 2, which would allow the Home Depot site
to go in and uncertain about the rest of the development.
Fraser added that the MDOT site would go away with Phase 1.
He said it was possible that the concrete and asphalt plant
would be building the improvements in Phase 2 and they would
only benefit to have them there.
Van Natta asked why FRDO wanted the batch plant out by
occupancy and Wilson said the concern was that Phase 1
would go in and nothing else would go in and the batch plant
stays and they get Home Depot and the gravel pit both.
Van Natta suggested a date and it was stated they had a
schedule in the plan.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 2
opposed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens reviewed condition #31, which was covered in the main
motion, that Domesite LLC pact relinquish their interest in
existing development agreement prior to a new development
agreement being executed for this proposal. Stevens asked if it
was a possibility or impossibility.
Fraser stated it was a legal question as to how it would be
accomplished. There was an existing agreement with
signatures that had to be nullified with an overlay of a new
one. He said the condition was open ended enough that they
could work with it.
Rice was concerned that with all the amendments they took
some meat out of the deal, although, he thought it was a great
idea and a great spot for Home Depot.
Mann said there was always the possibility it would not
happen, but they had to start somewhere. He said they may
run into obstacles that would preclude them from completing.
ROLL CALL (MAIN On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
OTION)
EVERGREEN L A zone change request by Evergreen Rail Industrial Center from
INDUSTRIAL CENTER I-2 to I-1 on approximately 40 acres located west of. LaSalle
ZONE CHANGE Road and south of West Reserve Drive in Evergreen.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 28
REPORTSTAFF r ••
JANUARY 2, 2001
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). A public hearing has been
scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for January 9, 2001
beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will
forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a
commercial development on property pre,,
sports coliseum and retail development
subsequently as the "Domesite." This
previously approved project with that whicl
PUD.
Technical Assistance:
request for a PUD to allow a large scale
ously approved for the development of a
known as the "ValleyDome" and then
application would effectively replace the
is being proposed as Mountain View Plaza
Stan Beard
Crosswell Development
2131 Sage Road, Suite 380
Houston, TX 77506
(713)266-9200
Pack and Co.
2355 Highway 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-4215
Michael Fraser, P.E.
Thomas, Dean 8v Hoskins
690 N. Meridian Rd., Suite 101
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-5246
B. Nature of the Request:. This is a zone change request by Crosswell Development
for Pack and Company to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would
replace the existing Domesite PUD. The PUD would function as an overlay for the
B-2, General Commercial, zoning designation and would replace the previously
proposed Dome Site PUD that included a sports complex / coliseum, motel and
retail development. The new development proposal includes three large
commercial pads that contain between 127,337 and 148,663 square feet located
to the east of the site and five smaller commercial pads that contain between
18,000 and 24,200 square feet located along the west side for a total of
approximately 513,246 square feet of commercial development. The property
contains approximately 60 acres of land.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property being proposed for
the PUD is located on the southeast corner of Highway 93 North and West
Reserve Drive. The property has frontage on both of these roadways separated by
a convenience store and gas station. The property includes approximately 51
acres of land owned by Pack and Company and nine acres owned by the Montana
Department of Transportation for which Pack and Company has a written -
agreement for exchange for like property located to the north. The properties can
be described as Assessor's Tracts 3A, 3D and 3E in Government Lots 1 and 2, and
further described as Tract 1 of COS 12230 and Tracts 1 and 2 of COS 13919
located in Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana.
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The site is currently being operated by NuPac /
Pack and Company as a gravel pit and batch plant for concrete and asphalt.
Additionally, the Montana Department of Transportation has their maintenance
facility on approximately nine acres adjoining the NuPac property. Both of these
uses have offices, warehouses, and equipment storage areas. These properties
were annexed into the city of Kalispell as part of the initial ValleyDome Planned
Unit Development proposal in the fall of 1998 with a B-2, General Commercial
zoning designation and a PUD overlay for the sports coliseum and retail /
commercial development.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Agricultural, church and Ole's convenience store and other
commercial uses, B-1 and R-1 zoning
South: Agricultural and FVCC, SAG-10 and R-1 zoning
East: Agricultural and Stillwater River, SAG-10 zoning
West: Agricultural and DNRC property, AG-80 zoning
F. General Land Use Character: The general land use character of this area is a
mix of rural residential, high density residential to the northwest, neighborhood
commercial, industrial (existing gravel pit on the site) and agricultural. It lies in a
transition area between the rural and urban areas of north Kalispell.
G. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Telephone:
CenturyTel
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
H. Relation to Zoning Requirements: The applicants are proposing a PUD which
would replace the existing Domesite PUD agreement. The property has an
underlying B-2, General Commercial zoning designation. The PUD would allow all
of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses listed in the B-2 zoning district
with the exception of those specifically exempted in the application. The PUD
development proposal has some deviations from the B-2 zoning that relate to the
building height and size and location of signs. These will be discussed further
into this report.
2
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. and
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Findings of fact for the zone change request are
discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A and Section
27.30.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The Kalispell City -County Master Plan map designates this property as
commercial. The proposed rezoning complies with the land use designation of the
property .
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The development is proposed to be served from three accesses from Highway 93
and two accesses from West Reserve Drive. Primary access is indicated to be from
a controlled access near the center of the site where a traffic signal is proposed.
The northernmost access along Highway 93 will be a right turn in and out only.
The access located at the south end of the property along Highway 93 would
function as a through access within the development. Highway 93 is maintained
by the Montana Department of Transportation. Highway 93 has been recently
upgraded to four lanes with a center turn lane. Highway 93 is in relatively good
condition. One of the two accesses to the site from West Reserve Drive is also
proposed for a traffic signal. A secondary access that would appear to function
primarily as a service entrance is also proposed from West Reserve Drive near the
northeast corner of the site. West Reserve Drive is a County road recently taken
over by the Montana Department of Transportation because of its secondary
highway status, and is designated as a major arterial from Highway 93 to LaSalle
Road in the Kalispell City County Master Plan. This roadway is in marginal
condition and may warrant additional upgrades by the developer as a result of
this development or the County as additional development in the area takes place.
The primary access to the site is near the center of the development and provides
a channel for the traffic entering the site. The through access road within the
development along the southern perimeter of the site will connect to West Reserve
Drive. Pedestrian paths are proposed along these roadways that will connect to
existing paths along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. A full traffic analysis to
assess the impacts of this development would have to be done to determine the
full implications of the development and the most appropriate location of the
traffic lights and accesses as well as review and approval by the City and Montana
Department of Transportation.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
This property is at the northern boundaries of the city limits which creates some
concerns regarding the emergency response times. The site is approximately
three and one-half miles from the fire station. However, the development of the
site will have to be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and hydrant
3
locations will be required to be identified with the fire department. It has been
indicated in the application that the applicant would like to utilize an existing well
on the site to serve at least in part the needs of the site. The Kalispell Public
Works Department has stated that insufficient information has been provided to
adequately evaluate whether the proposed use of the well would be feasible, and if
it were feasible the actually condition and capacity of the system.
There are no City stormdrains in this area. The applicant has proposed using dry
wells. However, the public works department has concerns regarding the long
term maintenance and functional efficiency associated with a dry well system
particularly as they relate to commercial stormwater runoff and the contaminants
associated with that type of use.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
A planned unit development proposal gives the public and administration the
opportunity to review the development plan on the site which should result in
better overall design, integration into the landscape and as an entrance to the
community. Part of the development proposal includes the extension of public
water and sewer to the site. The extension of these services and the ability of the
City of Kalispell to provide services to this site and other properties in the area
would be assessed as part of an overall evaluation and review of the utility
extension plan. The location of the commercial development is at a busy
intersection and the property enjoys wide exposure, however, disconnected from
other commercially developed areas in the community. The development of the
site for commercial use has the ability to provide goods and services to residents
of the Flathead Valley community and beyond.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
The planned unit development deviates from the zoning regulations with regard to
the proposed height limit of the large buildings proposed near the east side of the
center of the site. The proposed height limit these commercial pods is a
maximum of 45 feet rather than the 35 feet allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Actual building height is proposed to be a maximum of 38 feet with an additional
seven feet of height proposed for screening of roof mounted equipment. The
potential height and bulk of these buildings in an area with few commercial
buildings has the potential to create substantial visual impacts in the area. A
mitigating factor in the building height, however, is associated with the elevation
of the buildings which will sit approximately 20 feet below the grade of Highway
93 to the west. Increased landscape setback areas have been indicated along
Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive from the required 20 feet to 40 and 60 feet.
Adequate light and air will be provided under the proposal.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration
of people?
The development proposal, at full building out, contains approximately 513,000
square feet of commercial development divided between seven development pods.
At some point the applicants would file for a subdivision that would create these
parcels so that the development sites would be able to be conveyed as separate
L.
parcels. All of the parcels would comply with minimum standards of zoning. The
future development potential of the site would have substantial impacts on traffic
and people in the area. Traffic impacts associated with the type and intensity of
development proposed pose the greatest concern with regard to undue
concentration of people. Mitigation of potential traffic impacts associated with the
development of this site would be identified in an traffic impact analysis that will
be required by the Montana Department of Transportation and the City of
Kalispell which would deal primarily with impacts along West Reserve Drive and
Highway 93. This may include the use of deceleration lanes, limited access along
the highway, traffic signals and other appropriate means of mitigation.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
New City infrastructure will need to be extended to the site as it relates to water
and sewer. A complete and adequate analysis of the needs of the development
and the existing infrastructure and the ability of the City to serve the project have
not been fully developed or analyzed. Fire and police services will also be required
to service the site which will require fire safety improvements that will include
improvements to the water system, hydrants and sprinkled buildings, for
example. The location of this development in relation to the City fire department
poses some concerns regarding the City's ISO rating and response times to the
site. It appears that the adequate provision of public services should be further
and more fully assessed.
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The location at an intersection of two major arterials, the potential reclamation of
an existing gravel pit and the proximity to City services appears to make this
property particularly suited for the particular uses proposed for the site.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The character of the area is a mix of rural residential, high density residential,
agricultural, industrial and commercial. The industrial element of the area is
associated with the gravel pit and batch plant on this approximately 60 acre site.
Redevelopment of this property to a commercial use appears to give reasonable
consideration to the character of the area.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Most of the properties in the area are residential or agricultural in nature. It can
be argued that a commercial development such as that which is being proposed
would do more to conserve the value of buildings in the area than the existing
gravel pit and associated equipment, equipment storage, noise and dust.
5
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the jurisdiction?
Because this rezoning request complies with the commercial master plan map
designation, commercial development of this site, particularly with a PUD overlay,
would seemingly encourage the most appropriate use of this property. The
planned unit development will offer some predictability as to how and when this
property would be developed. It appears that this rezoning would encourage the
most appropriate use of this property and the use of land in the planning
jurisdiction.
Project Narrative: The Mountain View Plaza PUD is an approximately 60 acre site
which is proposed for the development of a large scale commercial development with a
total square footage of approximately 513,000 square feet. Three large commercial sites
indicated to the east of the property that contain between 127,337 and 148,663 square
feet and there are five smaller commercial pads containing between 18,000 and 24,200
square feet located along Highway 93. Three accesses are proposed along Highway 93
with the center access being controlled with a traffic light. Two accesses are proposed
along West Reserve Drive, with one traffic light near the center of the property. The
applicants are proposing a pedestrian path within the site that connects with existing
paths along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. Uses anticipated to occupy the site are
identified in the application to be primarily retail, restaurants, and offices. Uses that
would not be anticipated on the site would be uses which require large outdoor display
of goods such as auto sales.
The project is proposed to be phased in eight phases over 12 years, depending on the
market for the property and development. At some point the property may be
subdivided so that the development pads could be conveyed as separate parcels, but the
subdivision is not part of this PUD proposal. Phase I would include the development of
the northeastern corner of the site where the approximately 130,000 square foot pad is
indicated and associated parking. Phase II would be the site to the south of
approximately 127,00 square feet and then the attached building of approximately
149,000 square feet as Phase III, each with necessary associated parking and related
infrastructure. Subsequent phases along the highway would be developed north to
south as Phases IV through VIII.
The largest buildings located to the east of the site would have a maximum building
height of approximately 45 feet, but would be located approximately 20 feet below the
grade of the highway. The building nearer the highway would have a maximum building
height of approximately 28 feet and would be approximately 10 to 15 feet below the
grade of the highway. The buildings to the east would exceed the 35 foot height limit of
the zoning regulations.
Signage is generally indicated in the application to include two main entrance signs
along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. Similar type and style monument signs
would be used for the smaller buildings along the Highway. The proposed signs are
approximately 270 square feet per face and have been indicated at the property
boundary. The main entry signs exceed the allowable square footage per face for free
X
standing signs as allowed under the zoning and do not comply with the setback
requirements. There does not appear to be any mitigating factors associated with the
larger sign proposal that would provide a rationalization for granting a variance to the
maximum limitations.
Parking is indicated in several areas within the site, with the main parking lots located
between the large commercial sites and the highway. There are approximately 2,741
parking spaces provided for site with approximately 1,700 of the parking spaces located
within two large parking lots. Parking was provided at a ratio of 5.34 spaces per 1,000
square feet. Parking required under the zoning is approximately five spaces per 1,000
square feet. Some landscaping has been indicated within the parking lots as tree wells
and landscape islands at the end of the aisles.
Landscaping is indicated in the setback areas and at the east end of the site. This
comprises the major areas of landscaping within the site in addition to the landscaping
within the parking lots. The landscaping plans also indicate two small gazebos; one at
the northwest corner of the site and one near the center of the landscape area to the
east.
Criteria for the _Creation of a Planned Unit Develoument (PUD) District
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the planned unit development provisions are
to provide a zoning district classification which allows some flexibility in the zoning
regulations and the mixing of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and
enhancing the integrity and environmental values of an area. The zoning ordinance has
a provision for the creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city.
Review of Application Based Upon PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations
provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the
following criteria:
1. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not
limited to, density, bulk and use, and the reasons why such departures are or
are not deemed to be in the public interest;
The planned unit development deviates from the zoning with the increased height limits
for the large buildings located to the east of the site by proposing a maximum building
height of 45 feet rather than the required maximum of 35 feet under the B-2 zoning
regulations. The actual building heights would be approximately 38 feet with an
additional seven feet being used for screening roof mounted equipment. As proposed,
the buildings would be set at an elevation approximately 20 feet below the existing
highway grade to the west. The additional building height allowance will also provide
the applicants with additional flexibility in integrating some architectural features into
the buildings. The location of the buildings below grade will provide some mitigation to
the visual impacts related to the building heights being proposed and a variance to the
building height limitations may be warranted.
A "suggested" list of material, colors and exterior building treatments were part of the
application. However, there is no binding mechanism for the use of those materials and
7
other treatments either through the covenants, architectural review committee or other
agreement that would insure the public would have these included in the final
development of the buildings. Staff would recommend that a list of materials and
treatments as found in the application be included in the development agreement with
the City.
Signs located at the entrances along West Reserve Drive and Highway 93 are proposed to
be 28 feet in height and 270 square feet per face located at the western and northern
property boundaries. The size of the sign faces exceed the 200 square foot maximum
with a 50 foot setback from the property boundaries. The proposed monument signs for
the smaller businesses to the west of the site appear to comply, but the signs should be
reviewed in the context of an overall sign plan for the site including wall signs and
building mounted signs. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to grant a
variance to the sign regulations that would serve the public interest when the purpose of
the signs would be for identification and reasonable advertising. On the contrary,
identification and reasonable advertising can be accomplished within the context of the
regulations. Furthermore, a variance to the sign regulations will create unnecessary
visual impacts associated with the larger signs that have the potential to create
unnecessary visual clutter
2. The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development
project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the
common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and
function of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling
types proposed in the plan;
Open space is defined in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as "Any part of a lot
unobstructed from the ground upward. Any area used for parking or maneuvering of
automotive vehicles or storage of equipment or refuse shall not be deemed open space."
Open space has been indicated on the site plan as the landscape areas to the east of the
site that will be reclaimed as part of the reclamation of the gravel pit. Additional
landscaping along the setback areas between the parking lots and Highway 93 and West
Reserve Drive is also indicated on the site plan. No plan for the maintenance of the
common open space area has been provided in the application. However, this can be
easily accomplished through a maintenance agreement between the tenants and the
developer.
Perimeter landscaping is proposed along Highway 93, West Reserve Drive and there are
landscape islands at the end of the aisles of the parking lots. Tree types and caliper
were not specified in the application. It appears that the trees have been located at 100
to 75 foot intervals on the perimeter landscape plan. Kalispell's Street Tree Ordinance
requires spacing of trees at 40 foot intervals with a two and a quarter inch caliper tree.
Potentially, the 75 foot intervals of street trees may be appropriate along the highway
and West Reserve Drive to allow more visibility of the development from the roadway.
However, the internal placement of the street trees along the internal driving aisles
should comply with the 40 foot spacing or at a minimum of 50 feet on both sides of the
roadways, with the exception of south boundary of the southern entrance off of Highway
93. All trees should be a minimum of two and a quarter inch caliper at planting. The
overall landscape plan should be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and Recreation
Director for the exact placement and species of the trees within the parameters outlined
in the application and conditions of approval.
FQ
All of the parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and landscape areas will be should be held
in common or have cross easement agreements recorded to ensure unrestricted accesses
within the site. Although not specified, these common parking and access areas are
generally maintained through a property owners association for the development.
Covenants were included with the application, but were very generic in nature and had
no real specificity to this site or to this development. There is no reference to the
maintenance of common area included. The covenants will need to be revised to include
some appropriate language on a pro-rata share of maintenance of the common areas.
3. The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate provision for
public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic and further
the amenities of light or air, recreation and visual enjoyment;
The extension of public water and sewer to the site is proposed as part of the
development proposal. Some of the initial comments from the Kalispell Public Works
Department are that the proposed improvements and their impact on the existing City
systems have not been verified. The existing information and data are incomplete and
inadequate to identify the full scope of improvements or their adequacy.
Water to the site is being proposed by extension of the City's 12 inch main from the
Flathead Valley Community College to the south. A looped water main system has been
proposed within the development. Utilization of an existing well is proposed to be made
part of the public water system or .as an alternative system. However, incomplete
information relating to the use of the well and the needs of the development make it
impossible for the public works department to adequately analyze the impact on the City
water system in general and the City's ability to meet the needs of the development.
Public works and the fire department have expressed some concerns regarding the
necessary facilities for fire flow requirements.
Sewer would be extended to serve the project site. Public works has stated that there is
not enough information included in the application to adequately assess the sewer
facilities needs or flow, and that the peak flows from this development to the lift station
to the south could create operational problems. There is adequate treatment capacity at
the City's waste water treatment plant to serve the development.
Stormwater drainage is intended to be handled on site. No detailed plan for handling
drainage has been submitted with the application, but the applicants state that they
intend to utilize dry wells for stormwater disposal. Public works has concerns about the
long term viability and functionality of these systems especially in association with large
commercial developments which have a higher percentage of fine particulate matter that
can render these systems ineffective within a relatively short period of time.
Traffic is proposed to be handled by having three accesses onto Highway 93 with a
signalized intersection at the center entrance. There is also a signalized intersection
proposed at one of the two accesses onto West Reserve Drive, The Montana Department
of Transportation has stated that this development will significantly impact Highway 93
and West Reserve Drive (State Seconday 548), and that as the project progresses, access
issues will need to be addressed prior to permitting. The public works department is
recommending that the northernmost access near Ole's County Store be eliminated.
The State will need to complete a review of a comprehensive traffic impact study and site
W
plan for the project. The DOT expects all traffic impacts would be identified and there
would be a commitment to mitigation prior to permitting.
Comments from the Montana Department of Transportation regarding the proposal are
that the new proposed development will significantly impact US 93 and West Reserve
Drive (State Secondary 548). MDT will need to review the traffic impact study, site plan,
and access issues prior to any MDT permitting. All corrective measures identified by the
traffic impact study will be at the sole cost of the developer/property owner. All aspects
of the traffic impacts must be studied now and analyzed for all phases of development.
This includes coordinating access points with the development to the west of US 93 on
the school trust property. MDT and Pack have had a land exchange and an
environmental assessment was done on the two parcels. That assessment dealt with a
coliseum included and so this is a slightly different scenario. The proposed development
is a change in land use and requires new approach permits from MDT for both US 93
and West Reserve Drive. US 93 in this area is a limited access facility under federal aid
project number F 5-3(32)115. Any encroachments or landscaping within state highway
right-of-way will require encroachment permits from MDT for both US 93 and West
Reserve Drive. Due to the proposed size of commercial development and future traffic
impacts, MDT's Transportation Planning Division will coordinate internal review through
its System Impact Review Process via the Helena Headquarters office. This must be
done and completed prior to any approach permits being issued from the Kalispell Area
Office. Although not a direct impact on the transportation system, drainage and utility
infrastructure are a concern and should be identified in the evaluation process in detail.
This location is within the air quality urban boundaries. Mitigation measures for this
development need to insure compliance to appropriate PM 10 and CO standards.
Internal traffic is proposed to be handled primarily through a main access from Highway
93 to the two main parking lots to the west, and two other primary accesses, one from
West Reserve Drive and another from Highway 93 South. The overall design of the main
parking lots provide little opportunity for traffic to be channeled in a manner that will
lead to smooth flowing traffic within the lot. Continuous, expansive parking lots provide
for uneven traffic flows and potential conflicts. Staff would recommend that a north /
south traffic lane be provided within the parking lots and that one additional entrance /
exit on the west sides of these lots be provided to improve traffic flows within the
parking.
Future access to the property to the south of this site should be accommodated via the
proposed access road off of Highway 93 along the southern boundary. Some provision
should be made for shared access to the site, at a minimum, and consideration should
be given to the relocation of the traffic signal to this area to accommodate future
development. Construction of the roadway and associated expenses could be
reimbursed to the developer of this site at some point in the future via a development
agreement that would assess a pro-rata share of the costs.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
Redevelopment of the existing gravel pit and batch plant into a commercial development
may benefit the community as a whole by filling a perceived need within the community
for this type of a development. The greatest adverse impacts to the neighborhood would
be related to increased traffic from the site and the creation of a highly visible, large
10
scale commercial element in a relatively rural area of the county. The impacts of the
commercial development can be mitigated to a certain extent with extensive landscaping,
good site design and internal circulation, the limitation on certain uses allowed within
the B-2 district such as manufactured home dealers and used auto sales. Staff would
recommend that such landscaping and limitation of uses be included in the conditions
of approval.
Environmental issues and concerns raised by the Kalispell Public Works Department
relate to the environmental assessment of the MDOT parcel which indicated a high
potential for hydrocarbon contamination of the site because of visible evidence of
numerous spills in the area of the underground storage tanks. Public Works is
recommending that a Phase II environmental assessment be undertaken as soon as
possible because information contained therein may be critical to properly evaluate the
feasibility of using the on -site well as well as the design of the proposed utility
improvements.
5. In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the
sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain the
integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after consultation with
the city attorney;
This development is proposed to occur in eight phases over 12 years. Phase One would
include the commercial pad at the northeast corner of the site with subsequent
development of the large retail sites to the south. The phases IV through VIII would be
along the highway corridor. There is no information in the application that adequately
addresses the interim grading, revegetation and long term maintenance of the
undeveloped areas of the site. Additionally, there is no mention of the relocation,
removal and reclamation of the site where the batch plant, offices, equipment storage
and gravel pit and what the timing would be for its completion. These issues should be
more fully addressed in the development agreement. Staff would recommend that the
gravel pit operations be completely removed and full remediation begum prior to the
occupancy of the first building. In previous approvals of planned unit developments, the
city council required that all of the required improvements be in place prior to the
issuance of a building permit. No collateral or bonding was proposed with this
application.
6. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
No other specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance can be identified based
upon the information submitted with the application.
Summary: The zoning regulations require that once a final plan is approved by the city
council, the applicant shall submit a revised plan in accordance with the approval of the
council which incorporates any conditions which have been imposed by the council.
After all of the terms and conditions of the agreement have been determined along with a
final site plan, a development agreement will be drafted between the City of Kalispell and
the Developer outlining and formalizing the terms. The final plan as approved, together
with the conditions and restrictions imposed, shall constitute the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning for the site.
11
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt FRDO staff
report #KPUD-00-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that
the PUD overlay be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with
application submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the
city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same as
indicated on the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as modified
by these conditions.
3. That a Phase II environmental assessment of the site be completed prior to the
detailed design of the water, sewer and stormwater management facilities.
4. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
designed and installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public
Works Department.
5. That access from the southern access road off of Highway 93 to the adjoining
property to the south should be available to accommodate future development on
the property through the execution of a development agreement and payment of a
latecomers fee to the developer.
6. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code.
7. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation,
irrigation and maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free, dust -
free area until such time as that phase is fully developed.
8. That the necessary easements be obtained for the extension of water and sewer
services to the site.
9. That a comprehensive traffic impact study be completed which identify all expected
traffic impacts and proposals for mitigation, and that appropriate approach permits
be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation and the City of
Kalispell.
10. That the northernmost accesses along Highway 93 near Ole's Country Store be
eliminated.
11. That a north / south traffic lane be provided within the two main parking lots and
that one additional entrance / exit on the west side of these lots be provided to
improve traffic flows within the parking lots.
12
12. That trees be placed within the parking lots at a rate of one tree per every 14
parking spaces as indicated in the application narrative.
13. Street trees shall be placed at 40 foot intervals which are a minimum of a two and a
quarter inch caliper at planting along both sides of the internal roadways except
where they immediately abut a parking lot island or planter or abut building fronts.
14. That the landscaping along Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive include street trees
placed at 50 foot intervals which are a minimum of a two and a quarter inch caliper
at planting and a minimum three foot tall hedge or shrubs between the parking lots
and the roadways.
15. That a landscape pod shall be placed at the end of each parking aisle and the
parking medians which includes a minimum of one street tree at a minimum of a
two and a quarter inch caliper along with shrubs or other greenery.
16. The overall landscape plan shall be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and
Recreation Director regarding the exact size and location of the plantings and
species lists.
17. That pedestrian walkways be provided as indicated on the site plan that provide a
continuous and connected system with the existing walkways along Highway 93
and West Reserve Drive including a sidewalk on both sides of the main entrance
road.
18. That the landscape areas within the site be constructed as proposed that includes
landscaping, walkways and gazebos.
19. That the use of retaining walls in excess of four feet tall be avoided, but rather the
implementation of landscaped terracing be used to make the transition in areas
with the steepest grades.
20. The list of materials and exterior building treatments that was part of the
application for the final development of the buildings be included in the
development agreement with the City.
21. That the east face of the large buildings not be used for advertising, display of
corporate colors or logos and shall be treated with the approved list of building
materials and colors.
22. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes attractive lighting fixtures and a
type and level of lighting not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose.
23. That a comprehensive sign plan be submitted which indicates an integrated design
of lettering and materials. Two main entry signs shall be used which may be
located at the property boundary and not to exceed 200 square feet per face nor 28
feet in height. All other signs shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
Freestanding signs shall be limited to the proposed monument signs for the
businesses along Highway 93. The use of oversized signs, garish or corporate
13
colors, trademarks, or logos on the buildings shall be avoided as a primary means
of advertising.
24. That the uses allowed within the development shall not include those which
require areas for the display of large merchandise such as new and used
automobile sales, manufactured home sales, recreational vehicle sales and
lumberyards. This would not preclude incidental events associated with the other
businesses on the site.
25. That the three large buildings proposed for the eastern portion of the site shall not
exceed 38 feet in height, with an additional seven foot allowance for the screening
of roof mounted equipment and as an architectural facade.
26. That the refuse areas be adequately screened from public view.
27. That the covenants be modified to include some language regarding the
maintenance of common areas within the development and which grant cross
easement access between the lots and throughout the development.
28. That the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding
for the proposed infrastructure and improvements or other acceptable means of
insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by
the developer.
29. That the removal and / or relocation of the batch plant, associated equipment and
warehouses located on the NuPac and the Montana Department of Transportation
be accomplished prior to the occupancy of any commercial building(s) on the site.
30. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based
on terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
H \... \KPUD \ 00 \KPUD00-1
I
14
.o ELL FIRE LEA 1 1 \,1
336 1ST Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59903
(406) 758-7764
January 2, 2001
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5a' Avenue East — Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Re: Crosswell Development/ Pack & Company, Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Large Scale Commercial Development proposal.
Dear Ms Wilson,
The Kalispell Fire Department has reviewed the plans for the above -mentioned PUD, and
has questions about the fire flows and the water supply. We would need to see the
calculations to see how they came to there conclusions. We would also need to see a final
plat to see where the fire hydrants need to be placed.
Also, we would like to see all the streets at 3% grade or less. It is difficult to get
equipment around when the street grades go above the 3%.
We are presuming that all the buildings in the development will be sprinklered, not just
the large box buildings.
If there are any further questions or if the department my be of help in any way, please
contact us at (406) 758-7764.
Sincerely,
SEDDON
Fire Marshal
City of Kalispell
Narda Wilson
From: Herzog, Stephen [sherzog@state.mt.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:43 PM
To: Narda Wilson (E-mail)
Cc: Kaufman, Darin; Martin, Dan; Frazier, Loran
Subject: Pack and Co Development
Narda,
The following represent local comments from MDT.
* The new proposed development will significantly impact US 93 and
West Reserve Drive (State Secondary 548). MDT will need to review the
traffic impact study, site plan, and access issues prior to any MDT
permitting. All corrective measures identified by the traffic impact study
will be at the sole cost of the developer/property owner. Ali aspects of
the traffic impacts must be studied now and analyzed for all phases of
development. This includes coordinating access points with the development
to the west of US 93 on the school trust property.
* As you are aware MDT and Pack have had a land exchange and an
environmental assessment was done on the two parcels. I believe that
assessment dealt with a coliseum included and so this is a slightly
different scenario.
* The proposed development is a change in land use and requires new
approach permits from MDT for both US 93 and West Reserve Drive.
* US 93 in this area is a limited access facility under federal aid
project number F 5-3(32)115.
* Any encroachments or landscaping within state highway right-of-way
will require encroachment permits from MDT for both US 93 and West Reserve
Drive.
* Due to the proposed size of commercial development and future
traffic impacts, MDTs Transportation Planning Division will coordinate
internal review through its System Impact Review Process via our Helena
Headquarters office. This must be done and complete prior to any approach
permits being issued from the Kalispell Area Office.
* Although not a direct impact on the transportation system, drainage
and utility infrastructure are a concern and should be identified in the
evaluation process in detail.
* This location is within the air quality urban boundaries.
Mitigation measures for this development need to insure compliance to
appropriate PM 10 and CO standards.
* No comments on the zone change.
If you have any questions or need more information let me know.
Stephen L. Herzog, P.E.,
Kalispell Area Maintenance Engineer
(406)751-2000
P. 0. Box 7308
Kalispell, MT 59904-0308
ON of KaHSDell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
January 2, 2001
Narda Wilson
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5`' Avenue East; Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Mountain View Plaza PUD
Dear Narda:
I have reviewed the referral you have sent regarding the Mountain View Plaza PUD. As I
am sure you are aware, there is presently a PUD covering the proposed site which was passed
only a short time ago with a fair amount of controversy. The present PUD has key aspects which
are designed to serve the community in a unique way. I believe it is critical for this developer to
show that a truly first-rate development will occur if the current PUD is replaced with this
proposal, and that the community will benefit from the change.
It is difficult based solely on the materials presented to reach a judgment on the
appropriateness of this proposal, and ultimately, such a decision rests with the Council.
Nevertheless, I do have some concerns which need to be expressed. First and foremost, other
than an element of certainty as to what will take place on the property, there is very little about
the project which deviates from what the developer could do under simple B-2 zoning if he so
desired. If certainty is the community's primary benefit, there are some aspects which need to be
looked at with care.
There are eight phases spread out over the next eleven years, with a qualifier stating that
actual development will vary. While I am reasonably confident that the project will be completed,
it is always prudent to ask `what if' questions. For example, what if market conditions change in
four years and the project is left half completed or less? What if the first big box retailer builds its
store and development stops at that point? Would the community be satisfied with a project such
as that? I did notice that the phasing does call for certain steps to be taken which would help
provide the certainty we need, but I believe it is very important for this aspect to be looked at
closely throughout the review process.
Similarly, certainty also includes the architectural and aesthetic appearance of the
buildings. While an effort has been made by including a suggested list of materials and colors, a
suggested list has no real effect. There is no way to enforce a suggested list since it is not
mandatory. I do not see a problem with having a variety of available materials and colors, but I
do feel that a specific list is preferable to a suggested list. If more leeway is absolutely necessary,
it may be possible to allow materials similar to, but not included on, a specific list if approved by
the Site Development Review Committee.
There were also a handful of more specific concerns. First, the permitted uses allowed in
the PUD need to be well defined in order to allow consistent enforcement. The proposal includes
some good language, but contains qualifiers have been inserted which should not be in there:
"These specific uses are for conceptual purposes only and are not limiting the uses permitted in
the Plaza." The proposed language leaves the potential uses wide open. Also, the Council has
expressed concern about the spread of casinos, and we should consider expressly excluding
casinos from the PUD.
Second, there are floating footprints in which the size of one building may be increased or
decreased by 10% as long as the overall footprint of all of the development remains the same.
While I feel that the concept is appropriate, I believe it is a good idea to add a clause which allows
such a change only if the change does not significantly impact parking or traffic flow and makes
the change subject to approval by Site Review.
Third, the signage plan calls for two large freestanding signs. The size of the signs are
rather large, and, from what I can tell from the site plan, may significantly exceed the generally
applicable maximum size and height requirements contained in the sign ordinance. If the signs are
located 51 feet or more from the right-of-way, the general height requirement of the ordinance is
satisfied. With a comprehensive sign plan and a location 51 feet from the right-of-way, the
ordinance would generally allow 250 square feet (the proposal calls for 270). The final location
of the signs as they are designed will need to be subject to clear vision triangle requirements to
ensure traffic visibility. I have used the term "generally" because, absent specific language to the
contrary in the PUD, allowable signs within a PUD are very restricted under the sign ordinance.
The figures used above are based on general commercial districts.
There are a number of other issues regarding signs. Previous discussions based sign area
calculations on the entire area as one property; the proposal calculates the sign area based on
eight individual lots (which would actually substantially reduce the amount of available sign area).
The plan, on its face, only allows freestanding signs. Wall signs are clearly contemplated, and I
would imagine that canopy signs also would be contemplated. The plan should be cleaned up to
more clearly include those types of signs.
While I have attempted to be as complete as possible with my comments, other issues may
or may not arise as the review process moves forward. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
-ISorensen
Zoning Administrator
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell. Montana 59903-1997 -Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758
December 28, 2000
WEI V
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office JAN 2 - 2000
723 5`l' Avenue East
Kalispell, MT
59903
Reference: Crosswell/Pack PUD Application
Dear Narda:
This office has reviewed the information that accompanied the PUD application of
CrossweIVPack and the following comments are provided.
The application data as presented is sufficient to provide a starting basis for discussion of a
PUD agreement for this property but does not adequately address or include all the specific
details necessary to define an agreement.
These comments are general in nature and are not intended to define or otherwise establish the
City's final position with respect to any specific development requirement or obligation related
to the proposed PUD agreement.
Infrastructure:
• General: In general, statements regarding the theoretical relationship of the proposed
improvements and their impact on the existing City systems have not been verified.
Drawings of the facilities and proposed improvements and supporting design data are
incomplete, lack detail and are inadequate to identify the scope full of improvements
intended and their adequacy for the purposes described.
• Water: The current PUD requires either a conventional looped system or development
of an on -site well as an alternative supply source for the development during times
when the normal pipeline source is restricted or out of service. This requirement must
be maintained, and the applicant's reference to development of an existing on -site well
may be acceptable. There is a significant amount of information that is required, but
has not been provided, for us to assess the feasibility of using this existing well as a
source of supply. Among the items needed are the size, production capacity, water
quality, water right, completion details, history and current condition of the well. The
listed fire flow design value, 2,250 gpm, is problematic when compared to the stated
1,800 gpm capacity of the existing on -site well. There is a 450 gpm deficiency in fire
flow that must be addressed. Also, the selection of the 2,250 gpm value for fire flow is
not supported by information related to the type of construction for the structures to
be protected. With respect to the well and its stated capacity, the flow rate is only one
MDT parcels. The Phase I assessment of the MDT parcel did not recommend conducting a
Phase I1 environmental assessment. However, the Phase I assessment of the Nupac site
identified the high potential for hydrocarbon contamination of the site (page 13) because of
visible evidence of numerous hydrocarbon spills in the area of the USTs. The Phase I
assessment recommended (page 14) a Phase II environmental assessment to determine the
extent, if any, of hydrocarbon contamination of the site and to identify the remedial actions
that would be required. This Phase II assessment should be completed as soon as possible
because the information it provides may prove to be essential to the full evaluation of
proposed utility improvements. In particular it will be necessary to properly evaluate the
feasibility of using the existing on -site well as an alternative municipal water supply.
® Under the terms of the current Domesite PUD agreement the current Gravel, concrete batch
plant and asphalt batch plant operation is required to be removed by a date certain. We
recommend this date certain be maintained for this proposed change as well as the date certain
for completion of all infrastructure improvements.
® It is our understanding that the current Domesite PUD agreement remains in force. This
proposed change by CrosswelUPack involves parties not participating in the original
agreement. Does this present any problem to the City? We recommend this question be
thoroughly reviewed by the City Attorney prior to making any final determinations or
agreements respecting changes to the current Domesite PUD agreement.
These comments are not complete and should not be viewed as final but rather as a starting point
for further discussion. Please let me know if you need anvthing more at this time to more forward
on this application.
Director of Public
aineer
CC: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
MARC RACICOT, GOVERNOR
- STATE OF MONTANA
NORTHWESTERN LAND OFFICE
2250 HIGHWAY 93 NORTH
KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901-2557
28 December 2000
Narda Wilson
Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5t1i Ave East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: CROSSWELL DEVELOPMENT
Dear Narda:
Telephone: (406) 751-2240
FAX: (406) 751-2288
We have reviewed the information you provided concerning the above -referenced PUD
application. As you are aware, the property subject to the PUD request is located just east of
school trust land, which was subject to a neighborhood planning process. It is worth noting that
the PUD application recognized some of the planning objectives adopted in the Section 36
Neighborhood Plan. It would be desirable to achieve a pleasing entrance corridor to the city of
Kalispell [on both sides of the highway] by adhering to strict standards related to landscaping,
setbacks, and building design. Sensitivity to the highway corridor appears to have been
considered in the PUD by standards proposed for setbacks and landscaping and by site design
considerations for internal roads, building pad locations, and controlled access to the highway.
The purpose of this letter is not to judge the utility of the project or assess the appropriate use of
the property. However, it is my general opinion that the city has an opportunity for planned
growth at this location where development standards can be achieved to accomplish reasonable
public objectives. Planning for large commercial pods of development within a PUD framework
is always preferrable over scattered development along rural highway corridors.
The real point of this letter is to identify mutual opportunities. Future development opportunities
envisioned by the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan will be affected by development of the
proposed PUD. It would seem beneficial if the future growth of Kalispell [to the north] was
considered beyond the immediate needs of the PUD. For example, we have some idea of future
water & sewer needs for Section 36 based upon broad assumptions about how the adopted
Neighborhood Plan might ultimately be implemented. The city has also evaluated future needs
in the area of West Reserve Drive. The question is ... How does the extension of water and sewer
to the PUD property influence or otherwise affect the efficient extension of these services to the
surrounding properties? Unfortunate for the DNRC, we cannot participate with shared extension
opportunities until we have an approved project with lessees ready to share in the associated
expenses.
As your office is aware, we have an immediate proposal for a 60 acre business and
KALISPELL UNIT
STILLWATER STATE FOREST
LIBBY UNIT
PLAINS UNIT SWAN STATE FOREST
2250 Highway 93 North
PO Box 164
14N6 US Highway- 37
PO Box 219 Swan Like, MT 599l l
Kalispell, MT 59901-2557
Olnev, MT 59927-0164
Libby, MT 59923-9347
Plains, MT 59859-0211) Telephone (406) 75.4-2-101
Telephone (406) 751-2240
Telephone (406) 881-2.371
Telephone (406) 293-2711
Telephone (4116) 826-3851 Fax (406) 754-2884
Fax (406) 751-2298
Fax (406)881-2372
Fax (406) 293-9307
Fax (406) 826-5785
'AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER'
Comments on Crosswell PUD
12/28/00
page 2
technology park with a high school campus as another near term possibility. We are unable to
proceed with engineering design for either use until various internal processes are completed and
litigation issues resolved. Non -the -less, it might be appropriate to up -size the extended
infrastructure to the PUD in anticipation of future opportunities in Section 36. A developers
extension agreement between the PUD developers and the City could address the issue of
additional costs and ultimate payback.
In conclusion, the proposed PUD seems to adequately consider the influence of the adjacent
Section 36 Neighborhood Plan relative to setback, landscaping, and design considerations but is
somewhat silent on how the project will affect future extension of utilities to other nearby
properties. We would encourage the city to consider the long-term needs for water and sewer
services in the general are_a, not specific to a single development plan, and design the extended
facilities accordingly.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
q'�— 1 �"q \ A — a L &- 16
Jon Dahlberg
Northwest Area Manager
CROSSWELL DEVE LLC (FORMER VALLEY DOME SITE)
KPUD-00-1
I, the undersigned certify that I did this date mail via certified or registered mail a copy
of the attached notice to the following list of landowners adjoining the property lines
of the property that is to be subdivided. %� 7
Dater
Assessor's S-T-It Lot/Tract
No, No.
Property Owner
& Mail Address
SEE ATTACHED LIST
APPLICANT
STAN BEARD
CROSSWELL DEVELOPMENT
2131 SAGE ROAD SUITE 380
HOUSTON TX 77506
TECHNICAL PARTICIPANT
MICHAEL FRASER
T D & H
690 N MERIDIAN RD STE 101
KALISPELL MT 59901
ADJACENT OWNERS SUBJECTPROPERTY: TRACTS 3D, 3A 3E
SFC72*ON 31, T29N, R21
SECTION 25, T29N, R22 , P.M.M.
TRACT ASSESSOR NO. OWNER
1G None State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
P.O. Box 201001
Helena, Montana 59620-1001
1HC 0028926 DBH Properties LP
P.O. Box 6200
Coeur D'Alene, Idaho 83816-1937
SECTIONT
TRACT ASSESSOR NO.
None None
SECTIONr T29N, R21W, P.M.M.
TRACTO• NO.
4D None
41A 05-EO04116
4HA E004082
4I 05-0883300
OWNER
State Of Montana
State of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
Riverside Alliance Church
859 W. Reserve Drive
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2131
Larry O. & Ilene Lee
835 Desert View Drive
Lake Navasu City, Arizona 86404-0000
4H E038041 Riverside Alliance Church
859 W. Reserve Drive
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2131
4FB 0974760 Riverside Alliance Church
859 W. Reserve Drive
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2131
d
ON
0
Page 1
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
• X TRACTS '
4F E00372#
43 05-0089451
•
4FA E004082
SECTION r
0974490
3B None
3EA 05-E004086
3F 05-E004084
4D 05-E004084
J. Torance & Betty L. Harvey and
Riverside Alliance Church
860 W. Reserve Drive
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2132
Semitool, Incorporated
753 West Reserve Drive
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2129
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
State of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59901-9726
�9
Steven & Renee Golleher, Mark R. Olson
& J. Gary Longuet
2490 U.S. Highway 93 North
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2148
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
Page 2
SUBJECTPROPERTY.- TRACTS 3D, 3A 3E
SECTION 31, T29N, R21 W
SECTION 31, T29N, R21W, P.M.M.
TRACT ASSESSOR N
5CA 05-EO040871
3
[60 �11 -* *�
SECTION 31, T29N, R21W, P.M.M.
TRACT ASSESSOR N
4 0392350 1
53
E002801
D9�0
State Of Montana/Dept. Of Transportation
2701 Prospect Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601-9726
Ethel B. Borgen Living Trust
AD% Alan St. Marie
8047 South Danish Oaks Drive
Sandy, Utah 84093-0000
50
Huttton Family Trust
2315 U.S. Highway 93 North
Kalispell, Montana 59901-2558
Flathead County Attention: Road Dept.
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, Montana 59901-5400
Page 3
NOTICEOF
CITY-COUNTYKALISPELL # AND ZONING COMMISSIOM,
Mountain View Plaza Planned Unit Development - US 93 / West Reserve Drive
Community Residential Facility Conditional Use Permit - Crestline Drive
Zone Change from I-2 to I-1 - Evergreen Rail Industrial Center
Zone Change from AG-80 to SAG-10 - West Valley Overlay
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, January 9, 2001 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council
Chambers, Kalispell City Hall, 312 First Avenue East, Kalispell. During the regularly scheduled
meeting of the planning board, the board will hold public hearings and take public comments on
the following agenda items. The board will make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioner or the Kalispell City Council who will take final action:
To the Kalispell City Council:
1. A zone change request by Crossweil Development for Pack and Company to allow a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) which would replace the existing Dome Site PUD. The property is
generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive north of
Kalispell. The PUD would function as an overlay for the B-2, General Commercial, zoning
designation and would replace the previously proposed Dome Site PUD that included a sports
complex / coliseum, motel and retail development. The new development proposal includes
three large commercial pads that contain between 127,337 and 148,663 square feet located to
the east of the site and five smaller commercial pads that contain between 18,000 and 24,200
square feet located along the west side for a total of approximately 513,246 square feet of
commercial development. The property contains approximately 60 acres of land and can be
described as Assessor's Tracts 3A, 3D and 3E in Government Lots 1 and 2, and further
described as Tract 1 of COS 12230 and Tracts 1 and 2 of COS 13919 located in Section 31,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
2. A conditional use permit request by Leona Henry and Joe Cude to allow a community
residential facility for short term residential care (30 days or less) for up to five children
between the ages of 0 to 14 years of age on property zoned R-3, Residential. This zoning
district lists community residential facilities for eight or fewer people as a conditionally
permitted use. This use is proposed in an existing single-family home located at 120 Crestline
Avenue in Kalispell which is east of Highway 93 on the south side of Crestline Avenue and
south of Buffalo Terrace. The property can be described as Lot 10, Block 3, Highland Park
Subdivision located in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
To the Board of County Commissioners:
3. A zone change request by Evergreen Rail Industrial Center from I-2, Heavy Industrial, to I-1,
Light Industrial on approximately 40 acres located west of LaSalle Road and south of West
Reserve Drive in Evergreen. The purpose of the zone change request is to provide an area for
high tech industrial development rather than heavy industrial development. The property can
be described as Lots 1 through 10 and Lot 14 of Evergreen Rail Industrial Center Subdivision
and Lot A of the Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Teigen's Addition located in Section 33,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
4. A zone change request by Helen Kaeding, Genevieve Meyers and Starling Grosswiler from AG-
80, an Agricultural zoning district that has a minimum lot size requirement of 80 acres, to
SAG-10, a Suburban Agricultural zoning district that has a minimum lot size requirement of 10
acres on approximately 506 acres in the West Valley Overlay District and West Side Zoning
District and is located between Farm to Market Road and Stillwater Road and between Three
Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive.
Documents pertaining to these agenda items are on file for public inspection in the Flathead
Regional Development Office, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414, Kalispell, MT 59901, and are
available for public review during regular office hours.
Interested persons are encouraged to attend the hearings and make their views and concerns
known to the Board. Comments in writing may be submitted to the Flathead Regional Development
Office at the above address prior to the date of the hearing or you may contact Narda Wilson, Senior
Planner, for additional information.
Thomas R. Jentz
Planning Director
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND
F."
W E 'IT - c D R I V E
/ 3R_
IyF3z�
/ PARKING DETAIL t
/ I No scA-E
,06
OT
❑ll �
<z
zw
z iowm
130.846 S.F. o of =
200 O
0
� 4,S.F. I -U ¢
m
= I w
TREE -WELL DETAIL 3
ADA PARKGING 2 Na scAtF p cl A PAD D�rc
18,000 S.F. u
06/00/00
K00-04)
... .. ..., - v
� LEGEND
12�.33
ap�� au cessa Pn""
x �? I - N uxozc.vEv area Z
I PAD PAD - aaaro5E0 fiwtnixc Z
10,000 S.F. 7 S.F.
- 1 I _ Exisrmc vvvrcxm aauNonar Q �
�uuuuuullliiiiiiT� PNo �m a�N� < w
P(L
OsP.cEs cavxrmEsmury W Y is -
AD uunwunumnnununn Z �
z4,zoo S.F. �ilti17i1PiIII171liiili��l���fl
i2e co
LOT SUMMARY D
s A z
�II��III IIII II II IIIII I�T(<iltii�fiiiiliiRlil a PAo
lllllllllll 11 11 l; 14dfi63 SF. rorA_ ueKins wnces 2xe. I-
HIM
t�1�II''Iffl'IIIUIII�IIII III''llll�l ll''Il'l'"'Il 11 ff1l tIl�"vvN ov,��� sr-"cruE "' m
,Illrflllllf�l� sAxK.Nv .nEa 5Ri6.,�6655.F. W
Pao I w,vscwEo >n esa.zn s.F. Cl)
zz000 s.F. ro*« Puo arzu 2.573,321 s F.
c Na E
LIF
ISH—W.
r` nwi . arvs. ounov u2 sueaEcr f n
LEGEND
v
F-
z
0
m
< J
N J
< W
J d
a
-t wom. r 11 w-,
MAN
❑ LN
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION DIAGRAM
A-
666'
I A L I
—M- �FA
.-A
l—,
-T -1-
SEE
FM
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION DIAGRAM
Na
CX
LF-5
W E S T �""? E S E R V E D R 1 V E
'-
/ i nuuuu_ninl�nun�uu I I I I! � j I z= g
/ UUT��R��lilll!Ii I:I iI II IIIPIIIII� I Y<
IULI y U
/ I imp
/ nlllll II I'IIIII�'llll Illlllnn � 1 I ' oo �I }I
I
Uiliiil RIIT:Tf!TIT s c a _ I i z o x
011111111111 i1111111111111110 null 11 11 l!II'I'III IIII IIII II IID
U I I IT�.I mT *ffl 11 j w
Ilowm
I \ j (6= ^
BUILDING PAD x <n'a
fl!Illllllill II,III IIiII®I.alYn \ W �W„z�
eu�i�olxc � i I
I ` �LEGES,»DIwa�x
I wl
null IIIIIIII I'llllll llllllln � \ 1 a I I
I 911 - xaen i
1 Ull llllllllllllllil ll'I?iU \ .. A
I p -
! 1 n1n11nun11'nnnu111111n I I I� � _— 'mf F
wiuixe a I I I I I
m nl I Illi 11 llllli IIIIIII IIIII� a yam_ WF
�"ogi3aioo
I I I I
- - - - - - -
- - - - -
- -
— — — —
Q — — ——
� nll IIIIIII IJll llll� ,1 r..
UIII I „� z:
m',uinlnnnll^Ilnlllunm
U III BUILDING PAD j _ \ <
_ < W J
J
nlmnunrlrlln nnlluun
u ,nJ agal a
� W Y
UTi1Tnn111'Il I'Inlll!!Il lllllllllllin '� \ J
fiN z
c _ UIIIIIII I'll'lll� IIIII 1 N {_
F n l l 11 11 l rnuunllllun �= Z rn
Z
n0
mIF oIIm'u!n
U !. _ F-
nl n'II I'I III 111 111 111 nll II'nI II�III 1111111 gldn BUILDING PAD
I �I III 111 II 1111 UT�TI�I rlTf�Tf�I�J - '
1 nllllll'III 'lull llll'I'l l'_0
i LTiT I,tl � �I
SHEER 6
W E SST R E S E R V E D R I V E
Hill I I ill,
// Ull�inl illl!I IIIIIII IIIIn I
III
/ / % / nllllllll I'll I' Ill 11111111111n `I
_� Illil;
/ nlllnlllllllll llllll ll llllllll'1 �1
IIIIJIM1111
ITTI-
nnluuulmullnnln!un!n G
nimmimmimimmin
01111111111111111111111111111� �� 1 P
I oy`'. ' nilnnuu!un!nulnru!n �
4 rS,'t �Tru
nlnuununu!uuuuu!r Q �
nnnl!Ilunnunnn!uun
,
T;�Ut
Inl IIII IIIIIIII! III !I IIIi,lln17ii U
I . , I I �(m ��n nluln nlu n¶Illl
HASE I
nnlilllnlil I! IIIIflL
I Ulll lllln� Ilil.._ I Il llllllln Ul�lllln'If'.,L. I''�IIIIIIIIIIII ''�
I _il lil„�i 1 J
I n I Illlil!�!I III
nlll�lll'Ill I'Illl ll IIII IIII l'.
oyy�, nlllllllu��!II�ILIFrI
�� IIIIIII'l ll�lll ll!III U
nnlnummnllllnu�nnun i 1�~
� - � Y yy �ti� I IIII II'I 'll'lll iltil�lllllll I Iln '�
i
O�O�h
= 1
TFTF TTTTL
LEGEND
,Esca s�
z
a
z
of2
NJ
Q J
IL y
J
w <I a
Z z
r a, z cc!; ax
o Z
F
r�
d
0)'
HWY 9,3.—
z
c6
NO —HOLE
2C
o
Z
i.
a. 0. AE
IDIOO, CONNECT;
TO EX FlCcl
QI
wF
Z="06/30/00
<
rw
LEGEND
F—
z
Z<
•N—
LOCATION MAP
LLI <
I. ul
LL
OR
<
z
T—
:w3
3
ci
ELI,
2C.
71
SHEEfS