Loading...
06/07/04 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M. JUNE 7, 2004, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, KARI GABRIEL, BOB HAFFERMAN, BOB HERRON, RANDY KENYON, DUANE LARSON, HANK OLSON AND JAYSON PETERS WERE PRESENT. Also present: City Manager Chris Kukulski, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Assistant Fire Chief/Prevention Officer Jim Stewart, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Baker, Police Chief Frank Garner, Public Works Director Jim Hansz, Building Official Craig Kerzman, and Tri-City Senior Planner Narda Wilson. Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Kennedy asked for a moment of silence in honor of Past President Ronald Reagan. A. AGENDA APPROVAL Kenyon moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Council Minutes — Regular Meeting — May 17, 2004 2. Ordinance 1499 — International Building Codes — 2nd Reading In order for the City to maintain its certification, Council is required to adopt any amendments to the building codes made by the State of Montana. Ordinance 1499 passed on first reading May 17th. Larson moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. C. STUDENT ISSUES None. D. PUBLIC COMMENT Beverly Braig, 252 Juniper Bend Drive, read a letter from the Juniper Bend Homeowners Association asking that the City incorporate Juniper Bend Drive into the Kalispell street system. (Letter and attachments are attached and by this reference are made a part of the official record) Don Garberg, Kalispell Business Owners Association, relayed the results of two polls recently taken by members. He said the first poll dealt with the sewer annexation issue before the Council and asked if a regional sewer authority should be established for the greater good of all municipalities. Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page I Garber said 62.5% voted yes and 37.5% voted no. He said the second question asked if the City sewer service utilities should be tied to annexation; 31.3% said yes and 68.8% said no. The final question asked if the City should be allowed to allocate excessive administrative overhead charges against sewer account revenues. Garber said 6.3% voted yes, 93.8% voted no. Finally, Garber said members were asked if the study commission should be approved on the primary ballot; 80% responded yes and 20% stated no. Roxanna Brothers, 786 4th Avenue East North, presented the Council with copies ofthe book "How Wa1Mart is Destroying America" and asked that they read it. Tim Calaway, Bigfork, spoke in favor of Agenda Items #4 and #5, stating he has no problem with any of the conditions except for the closure of Underhill Road, stating he doesn't feel the Council has the authority to close off a public road. Stan Beard, Mountain View Plaza, stated he is opposed to the 54' building height the Spring Prairie developer is asking for on behalf of Lowe's. He said they should have to play by the same rules as he did when he developed Mountain View Plaza. Betty Jo Malone, 627 Underhill Court, asked the Council to consider carefully Calaway's request, stating Underhill Court is a very small community with a very narrow street and no sidewalks. She said if Underhill Court is allowed to be used as an exit it means an additional fifty to one hundred cars a day. Malone asked that the street be closed, but if it must be left as a public road dedicate its use as emergency travel only. Mark Goldberg, Spring Prairie Center, said he has been involved with many developments and usually communities want buildings that are architecturally interesting. He said to give the Lowe's building its traditional gable look, an eight foot variance is needed. Goldberg introduced Jack Swanson, the architect for the project. Swanson displayed illustrations, explaining to the Council the difference the eight foot variance would make. Goldberg concluded by stating he is asking for the variance simply to keep a large building from looking flat. Jim Purdy, Glacier Commons Subdivision developer, said he would like to meet somewhere in the middle on the upgrade of Granrud Lane. He said according to State law, the developer is required to develop property he has a true impact on, which in this case is from Whitefish Stage to White Bark. In addition, Purdy said there are two subdivisions "coming in behind him" and if he has to upgrade the full length of Granrud Lane, then he's helping two subdividers next door that should be meeting him half way on the upgrade. Nancy Fenner, 633 Underhill Court, said she is opposed to Calaway's development if the road is going to come through Underhill Court. E. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION E/1. MAY 17TH) Kenyon moved to remove Resolution 4893B from the table (a resolution rejecting the request of Shaw Development, owner of certain real property, to amend Resolution 4711 conditionally approving the preliminary plat of Glacier Commons Subdivision, more particularly described as Assessor's Tract 2 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 21 Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 2 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana). The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. Hafferman said he will vote against the resolution rejecting the amendment request. He said according to the City's rules and regulations "this developer is being dumped on" for having to upgrade Granrud Lane its entire length. Haffennan said this development will "very, very minimally" contribute traffic west of Buffalo Stage and therefore, that portion of Granrud roadway improvements west of Buffalo Stage should be left to the developments that are, and are to be, west of Buffalo Stage. In addition, Hafferman stated the Council will be creating a problem with disposal of storm water when "we start requiring curbs, gutters and collection systems in a suburban setting". He said the existing City standards for alternate local streets address the needs of storm drainage as well as a safe walking area, and a paved walkway would be better if separated from the roadway by a grass strip and the proposed eight foot bike path instead of a sidewalk makes sense, but shouldn't be concrete. Kukulski answered questions Larson commented the Council set conditions on a preliminary plat that were intended to be followed and if there was a change in the road structure entering Granrud Lane that's not the Council's problem. He asked what happens if it's appropriate for the two future developments to have curbs, gutters and sidewalks and then they don't match up. Larson said he wants the developer to live up to the original preliminary plat. Olson asked if our design standards "follow along with what we originally asked to be done". Kukulski responded the problem is the regulations don't clearly define what is meant from Point A to Point Z. He said there isn't a history to fall back on when it comes to this dead end County road that is feeding into and out of this subdivision. Olson said he doesn't see how the Council can do anything other than having the upgrade go to the end of the development and then have a discussion on the sidewalks and bike path. He said the Council needs to be consistent and require upgrading to the end of the development. Atkinson said he'd like to see any development that abuts a road pay, or promise to pay, half of the upgrade when necessary. He asked how the Council goes about requiring that. Kukulski said the Council can require a waiver of an SID for future upgrades, but in this instance it is too late to add conditions to the preliminary plat. Peters said he's having a problem with requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street. He said in his opinion, a bike path makes the most sense. Peters reminded the Council that The Greenery developer was not required to upgrade the road to the end of his property, adding the Council has not set a policy on transportation and "we're winging it as we go". He said he feels the most reasonable thing to do is to reject this resolution and go back to square one and decide how the City wants Granrud upgraded. Hafferman agreed utilities have to be extended to the farthest property boundary, but doesn't that include these roads. He said the Council didn't require any of the new developments along Sunnyside Drive to mitigate the impact to that road. Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 3 Olson asked if the Council could reject Resolution 4893B and then "clean up" 4893A Mayor Kennedy answered that's correct. She said if the Council votes down Resolution 4893B rejecting the amendment, then the Council could bring forth Resolution 4893A with any changes members deem necessary. The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Kenyon, Larson and Olson voting in favor, and Hafferman, Herron, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting against. E/2. RESOLUTION 4895 — PRELIMINARY PLAT — DeMEESTER SUBDIVISION This is a request for preliminary plat approval of a four -lot residential subdivision on approximately one half acre on the west side of 7th Street West between Sunnyside Drive and 11 th Street West. Atkinson moved Resolution 4895, a resolution conditionally approving the preliminary plat of DeMeester's Subdivision, more particularly described as Assessor's Tract 9BA located in Section 18, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The motion was seconded. Wilson explained this subdivision creates two lots fronting along 7th Avenue West and two adjoining lots to the west accessed via a joint flag Iot configuration. She said a variance to the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations has been filed to allow for the two adjoining flag lots which will have a single, paved, shared driveway with an approved fire access turnaround. Larson asked if the subdivision meets the requirements of the Fire Department. Stewart responded the subdivision does allow for an adequate fire access turnaround. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote. E/3. RESOLUTION 4896—PRELIMINARY PLAT —STRATFORD VILLAGE PHASE 4 This is a request for preliminary plat approval of Stratford Village Phase 4, a 23-lot residential subdivision on approximately 3 acres in southwest Kalispell at the west end of Bluestone Drive. Peters moved Resolution 4896, a resolution conditionally approving the preliminary plat of Stratford Village Phase 4, more particularly described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 61, located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M, Flathead County, Montana. The motion was seconded. Wilson gave a staff report Hafferman said this is a difficult situation because it involves the question of property rights, following the rules and regulations, and public safety. He said this subdivision appears to be in accordance with the density allowed within the zone, however, he doesn't see where the developer has addressed the rules and regulations of the City's general extension of services plan which states, "All new development, pursuant to annexation, which further impacts the existing or proposed street network, will be subject to conditions of approval intended to mitigate said impacts". He said the plan also states, "In the event that a development creates impacts requiring off -site improvements, the City Council will determine whether the developer shall wholly or partially bear the costs of such improvements". Hafferman said this development will put additional traffic on Sunnyside Drive and Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 4 that issue wasn't addressed in the staff report or the recommended conditions of approval. He said this project should be tabled until the developer addresses mitigation of the impacts on Sunnyside Drive and the Council should address the problems and possible solutions pursuant to Sunnyside Drive as soon as possible. Hafferman moved to table Resolution 4896 until such time that this Council addresses the conditions, problems and solutions for Sunnyside Drive and the developer addresses the mitigation of impacts of the development on Sunnyside Drive. The motion was seconded. Mayor Kennedy asked Harball if a time specific should be set for the Council to place the issue back on the agenda. Harball said it should. Hafferman agreed to table the resolution for one month, or the 6th of July. The second concurred. The motion to table carried upon vote with Gabriel, Hafferman, Herron, Kenyon, and Olson voting in favor, and Atkinson, Larson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting against. E/4. ORDINANCE 1500 — ZONE CHANGE REQUEST — TIM CALAWAY/RICHARD AND JUDITH MOHRENWEISER-1ST READING This is a request for a change in zoning on several properties totaling approximately 3 acres from R- 3 to RA-3 for the purpose of constructing apartments located on the east side of North Meridian Road, north of Underhill Court. Kenyon moved first reading of Ordinance 1500, an ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1460), by zoning certain real property described as Tracts 1 and 2 of Certificate of Survey 11786 in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana (previously zoned City R-3, Single Family Residential) to City RA-3 (Residential Apartment/Office), in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, and to provide an effective date. The motion was seconded. Wilson gave a staff report on the request for a zone change and conditional use permit. She said three people from the neighborhood attended the Planning Board meeting and expressed concerns about the traffic impacts to Underhill Court. Wilson said in response to those concerns, the Planning Board is recommending a zoning designation of RA-3 and a condition of approval on the Conditional Use Permit that would close Underhill Court except for emergency access only. Hafferman asked if the developer has any concerns about this road closure affecting his project. Tim Calaway said if it's a condition the Council wants to make, then he can live with it, but it means he has to make a turnaround for the Fire Department. Hafferman commented it doesn't require a turnaround as Underhill Court would remain the same as it is today with an ingress and egress, it just means it would be for emergency travel only. Atkinson said he didn't agree with this stipulation at the Planning Board because he's always felt there needs to be traffic flow through neighborhoods. He said he won't make a motion to remove the Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 5 condition, but whenever they can the Council should make sure it allows for free travel through subdivisions. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote. E/5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — TIM CALAWAY/RICHARD AND JUDITH This is a request for a conditional use permit to construct several multi -family units on property located between Meridian Road and Highway 93, north of Underhill Court. Larson moved Council grant the conditional use permit for Tim Calaway and Richard and Judith Mohrenweiser subject to conditions. The motion was seconded. Larson clarified the conditional use permit contains a condition to close Underhill Court except for emergency traffic only. Herron commented by closing Underhill Court the only access left is off Meridian Road. He agreed with Atkinson stating there isn't a lot of traffic flow with this plan and it's going to be a traffic nightmare when Meridian Road is reconstructed. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. E/6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — ROBERT LANCE AND KATHRYN POSTEN This is a request for a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal structure on property zoned RA-1 for the construction of a duplex on the north side of Liberty Street. Peters moved Council grant the conditional use permit for Robert Lance and Kathryn Posten subject to conditions. The motion was seconded. Wilson gave a staff report. Atkinson commented that many times people complain about the red tape to get a project approved, however, he's had the opportunity to sit on the site development committee and the Planning Board and what he sees are suggestions to make things better that often result in savings for a developer and the process seems to be a win -win situation in the long run. He said this project is an example of that. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. E/7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — GOLDBERG PROPERTIES INC./DNRC This is a request for a conditional use permit to increase the height limit from 45 feet to 54 feet for the Lowe's building in a B-5/PUD zoning district that is part of the Spring Prairie Planned Unit Development. Peters moved Council grant the conditional use permit for Goldberg Properties, Inc./DNRC subject to conditions. The motion was seconded. Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page Hafferman said he sympathizes with the developers of Home Depot, but he and five other Council members were not involved in that project. He said he sees nothing wrong with this modification which appears to be based on sound architectural appearances. Hafferman says he sees nothing adverse to the taxpayer and "actually it improves my viewing with a better looking structure". Larson stated he's against the amendment because it seems like we negotiate these agreements in the beginning and then all of a sudden they have to be changed. He said he sees no logical reason for changing the height of that one portion of the building; you should be able to break up the building lines with 45 feet. In addition, Larson said he sees it as a fairness issue with the PUD across the highway. Wilson clarified when the Mountain View Plaza development was approved there was a 40 foot height limit in all the commercial and industrial zones and the PUD allowed Mountain View Plaza a 45 foot limit. She said since then, the Planning Board and City Council have reviewed amendments to increase heights in all of the commercial zones from 40 feet to 60 feet with a conditional use permit. Wilson emphasized this is not an amendment to the PUD and it's not a variance. Larson said he realizes the Council is voting on a conditional use permit, but he's stilt opposed to approving the height increase. He said he agrees with the Planning Board which opposed the request on a one -to -five vote. Mayor Kennedy asked Wilson to elaborate on the Planning Board's discussion Wilson said there were a couple of issues the Planning Board considered when making its decision. She said Stan Beard, Mountain View Plaza, submitted a letter in opposition citing concerns about equity and visual impacts associated with the increase in height. Wilson said the Planning Board is also sensitive to the sign issue, recently working on the sign regulations, and asked whether the height increase would involve a structure, or a sign. She said they determined this increase in height could give Lowe's a competitive advantage over Home Depot. Olson said he thinks sky line is an issue here and he will have to vote against it because of that. Peters commented an argument could probably be made that this height increase involves the structure, but he sees it as a sign. Wilson said if you look at the lettering, however, it is below the roof line Kukulski pointed out that throughout the community many buildings have fake facades and they are not considered signs. He said from a staff perspective, the City has been trying to "break up these boxes" and figure out how to make the boxes as attractive as we can. Kukulski said with a 100 foot building it's going to take different heights to break up that box. Herron said he's been in business for 28 years and businesses want a level playing field. He said he doesn't think it's fair to change the rules after the developer "across the street" had to follow different rules. Herron said if the City is going to have rules we have to be consistent; with the roads, signs, building heights, etc. Hafferman commented the City is being fair if we follow the B-5 zoning as we now have it. He said periodically plans are revised and once the revisions are made, the developers have to follow those revisions and this developer is. Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 7 The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Hafferman, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Herron, Kenyon, Larson and Olson voting against. E/8. RESOLUTION 4897 — SUBDIVISION VARIANCE — EMPIRE ESTATES PHASE 1 This is a request for a variance to the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations for Lots 1 through 5 of Empire Estates Phase I to allow for "double frontage" lots. Kenyon moved Resolution 4897, a resolution granting a variance to the preliminary plat of Empire Estates Subdivision, more particularly described on Exhibit "A", in Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The motion was seconded. Wilson explained the reconfiguration of the lots was necessary in order to insure that all of the lots in the subdivision comply with the minimum lot size and minimum width standards of the R-4 zoning district. She said staff is recommending a 15-foot buffer and no access strip be added to the east side of these lots so that egress and ingress would be only from the west. Wilson answered questions. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote. E/9. FINAL PLAT — EMPIRE ESTATES PHASE 1 This is a request for final plat approval of Empire Estates, Phase 1 that plats 16 single-family lots, 50 sublots and a 1.8 acre park on approximately 14 acres located on the east side of Stillwater Road north of Three Mile Drive. Larson moved Council approve the final plat for Empire Estates Subdivision Phase 1 and accept the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The motion was seconded. Wilson gave a staff report and answered questions. Hafferman commented he understands the bypass doesn't affect this phase, but asked if the traffic analysis needs to be updated to address a proposed deceleration lane at Three Mile Drive and North Riding Road. Hansz responded it may be appropriate to review the traffic analysis at the timePhase 4 is presented. Olson stated he just wants the developers to know he appreciates the planned park area instead of cash in lieu monies. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote. E/10. RESOLUTION 4898 —CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING — 2003/2004 BUDGET AMENDMENTS This resolution sets a public hearing for June 21 st for anyone who would like to comment on the City's proposed amendments to the 2003-2004 budget. Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 8 Larson moved Resolution 4898, a resolution calling for a public hearing to amend the annual appropriations of the City of Kalispell, Montana, as set forth in the 2003-2004 budget adopted by the City Council. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote. E/11. CITY MANAGER'S SALARY Gabriel moved Council approve a salary increase for the City Manager in the amount of $5,500.00 per year effective May Ist. The motion was seconded. Hafferman said he's opposed to a raise because the proposal is a 7% increase in the salary, which is already substantial. He asked how can the Council "justify giving a 3% raise to the backbone of our operation, the people in the trenches and those people who make the lowest salaries, yet we can give the highest paid person 7%. Hafferman said if there had been some improvement in the City's operation and efficiency, he could see giving a raise, but he hasn't seen any improvement. He said a 7% increase, along with the two wage increases of about 7% each over the past two years, adds up to over 21 % in three years and is unconscionable. Gabriel commented in the short time she has been on the Council she has seen an improvement in the City's operation and efficiency and disagrees with everything Hafferman said. She said she wants to see the increase become more equitable to what other city managers are making in the State. Kenyon agreed, stating Kukulski has done an outstanding job and has moved the City forward in many different areas that the City had been stalled on prior to his taking office and he thinks Kukulski deserves this. Peters said he also agrees that Kukulski does an exceptional job in many areas of the City, however, in the past two years this area had had the worst economics in the country and yet the Council has given him raises trying to equalize his salary with elsewhere. He said this year it's the same thing, the budget is once again increasing and it's tough to justify to taxpayers and the rest of the staff these increases. Peters said it appears to him that the Council is saying that Kukulski has done such an outstanding job that he deserves twice to three times as much as the other employees. In addition, Peters said it has to be hard to negotiate a contract with the unions when they know exactly what his raise is. Mayor Kennedy said unfortunately the City is "playing catch up" with the rest of the area in regards to salary levels for city managers. She said Kukulski is paid much less than the manager for Whitefish, which is a much smaller city. Mayor Kennedy said when you look at other areas in Montana the same thing holds true and the Council has a responsibility to look at the salary levels of the employees. She agreed the Council also needs to be fiscally responsible and stated she feels Kukulski has made improvements to the budget through the direction of the Council, adding last year the City had a budget that did not include an increase in mills or any new employees. Mayor Kennedy encouraged the Council to vote in favor of the motion stating she feels it's an appropriate increase. Herron said Kukulski may be underpaid in comparison to other city managers, but if a salary comparison is taken with people in Flathead County, Kukulski is paid "very, very well". He said this is no reflection on Kukulski, but he believes "in the economic times we are in, I can not vote to Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 9 justify a pay increase" Larson said he looks at the pay increase for the manager and the rest of the employees differently. He said you have to look at the responsibility of the job and someone in Kukulski's position does deserve more than the rest of the employees. Larson agreed with Mayor Kennedy that Kukulski has prepared the budgets with the wishes of the Council and it's not easy to cut the budget when people in the community expect certain services. Gabriel commented Kukulski's salary is minor in comparison to the budget he's responsible for. The motion carried upon vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Kenyon, Larson, Olson, and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman, Herron and Peters voting against. F. MAYORICOUNCILICITY MANAGER'S REPORTS (No Action Mayor Kennedy mentioned that the Council received a letter from C. Dill commenting on the lack of flags on Main Street over the Memorial Day holiday. She said in the past the Kalispell Jaycees have coordinated the flags on Main Street, however, the Jaycees distributed the flags to local businesses after 911 and the flags were never returned. Mayor Kennedy encouraged another organization or business to come forward and provide flags for Main Street. Hafferman agreed a separate organization other than the City needs to coordinate the flags. He said in his opinion the flags would lose much of their meaning if the City erected them and he also encouraged organizations to "pick up the gauntlet". Atkinson said he thinks it's wonderful how many youth are utilizing the new skate board park and encouraged the kids to monitor themselves and encourage each other to wear their helmets. Parks and Recreation Director Mike Baker spoke about the new water and skate board park grand opening set for Saturday, June 12th. Olson and Larson commented they took a tour of the new water park before the meeting and they wish they were kids again to enjoy it. Kukulski thanked the Council for their support and the compensation adjustment. G. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk Approved June 21, 1004 Kalispell City Council Minutes June 7, 2004 Page 10 June 7. 2004 The Honorable Pam Kennedy, Mayor City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 REF: Incorporation of Juniper Bend Drive into Kalispell Street System Dear Mayor Kennedy: The Board of Directors for Juniper Bend Homeowners Association comes now before you having prepared professional responses to the November 18, 2002 letter from Jim Hansz, Public Works Director concerning the two steps which must be followed prior to the City's acceptance ofJuniper Bend Drive into the Kalispell street system. You and the Council can appreciate the efforts of this volunteer board as new leadership necessitates a longer time frame than is perhaps judicial. Non -the -less we come prepared to continue our struggles to conclude this request. Attached to this letter you will find a definitive rebuttal/review by Andrew J. Hyde, P.E. of Carver Engineering, Inc. Mr. Hyde was hired by Juniper Bend Homeowners' Association to review the October 7, 2002 document from Jim Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager about the potential dedication of Juniper Bend Drive to the City. It is our sincere desire to work with the city to correct this problem. It continues to make no sense to have the city own and maintain a road which runs off of Grandview Drive joining our internal roadway with no continuity of snow removal and maintenance. We believe by working together we can accomplish a common sense approach to this unique problem. Thank you for your diligence in continuing to review this matter. Sincerely, JBHOA Board of Directors 144 Juniper Bend Drive Kalispell, Montana 59901 zk'& ' 'dk11Pvx) Duane Knutson, President Beverly J. Braig Mark D. Schickendantz JBHOA Board of Directors City of Kalispell Public Works Department Post Office Boy 1997, Kalispell. Yton ana 59903-1997 - Telephone (106)758-7720, Fax (406)758-7831 November 18, 2002 Juniper Bend Homeowners Association 133 Juniper Bend Drive Kalispell, Montana 59901 Attention: Mark D. Schickendantz, President REF: Incorporation of Juniper Bend Drive into Kalispell Street System Dear Mr. Schickendantz, In response to your letter dated September 13, 2002, there are two steps which must be followed prior to the City's acceptance of Juniper Bend Drive into the Kalispell street system. The first step is provide to the City, certification by a professional engineer that Juniper Bend Drive was constructed to the structural requirements of the City of Kalispell in place at the time of construction of the street. The certification provided by Mr. Mike Fraser, P.E., the engineer of record, dated February 14, 1997, only certifies that the utilities were constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell approved plans and specifications. This first step should be completed prior to proceeding with the second step. The second step is to provide to the City, legal document(s) properly describing the street right-of-way to be conveyed. The right-of-way width for streets is sixty feet. Sincerely, Jim Hansz, P.E. Public Works Director Carver Engineering, Inc. 1995 Third Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 257-6202 FAX: (406) 756-1093 email: driekyli@digisys.net To: Duane Knutson, President Juniper Bend HOA P.O. Box 8673 Kalispell, MT 59904 From: Andrew J. Hyde, P.E. Date: October 28, 2003 Re: Juniper Bend — Review of City of Kalispell Memo dated October 7, 2002 Mark: I reviewed the October 7, 2002 memo and supporting material from Jim Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager about the potential dedication of Juniper Bend Drive to the City. I have summarized the major points of the memo and have reprinted them in italics in the following narrative. My comments are offered after each point. I have taken the liberty of rearranging the order of Jim's comments and grouping them together for the sake of continuity where I thought appropriate. • The original design of road and utility improvements was in general conformance with City Standards. This is true. The City of Kalispell reviewed and approved the plans prior to the beginning of construction. • Changes were systematically incorporated into the roadway during construction that caused the constructed facilities to not conform to City Standards. • The City did not approve the as -constructed road grades, cross section and lack of sidewalks and boulevards. This is not true. The roadway design was approved by the City of Kalispell prior to construction. Bob Babb, former City of Kalispell Public Works Director, gave to me the City's set of construction drawings covering street and utility improvements. This set of drawings bears two handwritten notes. One reads "Received 4/7/93" and the other says "Approved JCW 4/13/93". (JCW is John Wilson, former assistant City Engineer.) See Attachment One. I have already Page 2 of 6 October 28, 2003 — Memo to Duane Knutson — Juniper Bend provided you a copy of an April 19, 1993 letter from Bob Babb to Tom Jentz of Flathead Regional Development Office stating that the City has reviewed and approved the plans and specifications for the Juniper Bend street and utility improvements. The roadway was installed according to the approved plans. I reviewed the as - built drawings of the infrastructure improvements for Juniper Bend prepared by T, D & H, the engineering firm that also prepared the design drawings. The as -built drawings indicate that the roadway was installed almost exactly as shown on the approved plans. There are no substantive differences between the approved construction drawings and the as -built drawings. Engineer's Certification for the project clearly indicates that only utility improvements were constructed in conformance with City Standards. The Engineer's Certification of Completion bears the title "Water, Sewer, Street and Storm Drainage Improvements" and reads in part as follows: "The utility improvements for Juniper Bend Subdivision have been completed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the City of Kalispell'. The certification is signed and stamped by Mike Fraser, P.E of T, D & H. I spoke with Mike Fraser and he recalled the following. The conditions of approval established by the Kalispell City Council for the Juniper Bend Subdivision required water, sewer, street and storm drainage improvements. The approved plans covered all these required improvements, which were installed as a package during construction. The purpose of his certification was to allow the subdivision plat to be filed. The certification encompassed all the improvements shown on the approved plans. The certification included rather than excluded the roadway. A note appears on the final plats of Juniper Bend stipulating that the roadways are to remain private in all respects. There is indeed a note on the plats indicating that the roadways within the subdivision are private roads. This same note appears on the plats of other subdivisions recently annexed into the City of Kalispell. See Attachment Two. The roadways in Glacier Village Greens Subdivision, Phases 1, 11, III, IIIA, 11113, IV, V, VII, IX and X all bear the exact same note. All the streets and roadways of these subdivisions were intended to be private in all respects when the plats were filed but were later accepted by the City of Kalispell. The presence of the private road note on the Juniper Bend plat does not prevent their later dedication as public property and acceptance by the City of Kalispell. Public Works does not recommend accepting sub -standard new construction to be maintained at public expense. The City of Kalispell has accepted sub -standard road construction in other places in the recent past. Two examples are given. Page 3 of 6 October 28, 2003 — Memo to Duane Knutson — Juniper Bend One is the previously mentioned Glacier Village Greens subdivision. When this subdivision began back in the late 1980s, the roadways were designed to Flathead County road standards, which are less stringent than City standards. The Flathead County roadway section was much thinner than the City of Kalispell roadway section (14 inches versus 23 inches). No curbs, gutters or sidewalks were required. Despite these deficiencies, the roads of Glacier Village Greens were accepted by the City of Kalispell and now maintained by the City at public expense. See Attachment Three. The other example of acceptance of sub -standard roads is the recent Meadow Park subdivision. By this recent annexation, Kelly Road, Mallard Drive, Condor Drive, Russell Drive and South Woodland Dive south of Kelly Road became part of the City of Kalispell. To varying degrees, all of these streets and roads are sub -standard in one way or another. Sidewalk exists on only Russell Drive and the last thousand feet of South Woodland Drive, and only on one side of each street, not both as required in the City standards. Curb & gutters do not exist on Kelly Road, Mallard Drive, South Woodland Drive north of Russell Drive, and Condor Drive. Judging by the pavement condition of Mallard Drive, its cross section is less than required by City standards. These two examples illustrate that the City of Kalispell is indeed willing to accept and maintain sub -standard roads. • The original roadway appears to have been planned as a dead end extension from Grandview Lane. • Juniper Drive became a through street when the cul-de-sac was eliminated and Juniper Drive was looped back onto Grandview Lane. • Minimum right-of-way width of non -through roads was 40 feet. • Minimum right-of-way width of through roads was 60 feet. • Standard roadway cross section included curb, gutter, sidewalk and boulevard. • As -constructed plans show that curb & gutters were installed but neither sidewalks nor boulevards were provided. The approved plans show that Juniper Drive was designed to connect to Grandview Lane in two places, making a continuous loop around the subdivision, rather than a dead end with a cul-de-sac. This design feature was described in the findings of fact of City of Kalispell Resolution 4092, which gave preliminary plat approval to Juniper Bend. See Attachment Four. The details of Juniper Drive as approved by Resolution 4092 are for a "fully improved street with a paved travel surface of 24 feet, curb and gutter within a 40-foot right-of-way". Note that sidewalks were not required. As -built drawings indicate that Juniper Drive was built in conformance with the requirements established by the City of Kalispell Council. Page 4 of 6 October 28, 2003 —'-Memo to Duane Knutson — Juniper Bend I spoke with Mike Fraser about the roadway requirements. Mike indicated that Juniper Drive was always intended to loop onto Grandview Lane. It was never intended as a dead end. The question of right-of-way width can be answered by referring to Detail Drawing R-8 from the City of Kalispell Standards and General Provisions for Design and Construction, April 1987. These standards were in effect at the time Juniper Bend was created. See Attachment Five. This drawing shows a right of way width of 40 feet is allowable for local, curbed, non -through streets. The drawing also notes that this detail may be used for only cul-de-sac or looped roads that begin and end on the same through road. Juniper Drive connects to Grandview Lane in two spots and loops through the Juniper Bend subdivision. Juniper Drive is a non -through road as defined in Detail Drawing R-8. The 40- foot right-of-way width detailed in the drawing and approved by the City of Kalispell in Resolution 4092 is appropriate for Juniper Drive. Sidewalks were not required in the set of conditions established by the City Council. Mike Fraser recalled that the City routinely omitted sidewalks in subdivisions where the surrounding area had no other sidewalks and there was no existing system of walking paths. These conditions definitely apply to Juniper Bend. Again the City has accepted many other roadways that also lack sidewalks, so there absence in Juniper bend should not be sufficient reason to decline the dedication of the road to the City. • Required roadway cross sectional depths were for a total depth of 23 inches consisting of 18 inches of pit run sub -base, 3 inches of crushed gravel base course, and asphalt thickness of 2 inches. • As -constructed plans show that total road cross sectional depth is 16 inches. These two comments are true. Detail Drawing R-8 (Attachment Five) does indeed show the required thicknesses for the road section are for 2 inches of asphalt, 3 inches of crushed gravel cushion and 18 inches of sub -base. The thicknesses shown on the approved plans for the road section are 4 inches of asphalt, 6 inches of cushion and 6 inches of sub -base. The City standard road section was derived based upon the typical native soils encountered in the original Kalispell town site, which are fine-grained materials (silts and clays). The 1986 City Standards state that the road sections are based upon "subgrade soils having a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 10 of higher and an A.A.S.H.T.O. Soil Classification of A-4 or better." A-4 soils are rated as fair to poor as road subgrade material. The native soil underlying Juniper Drive, according to Mike Fraser, is "200 feet plus of pit run gravel'. As a subgrade material, this pit run gravel is far superior to the silts and clays found in the lower flatter part of Kalispell. The native soils in Juniper Bend would have a CBR of Page 5 of 6 October 28, 2003 -- Memo to Duane Knutson — Juniper Bend between 35 and 80 and an A.A.S.H.T.O. Soil Classification of A-1 or A-3. These soils are rated as good to excellent sub -grade material by A.A.S.H.T.O. NOTE: A.A.S.H.T.O. = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A comparative analysis of the two road sections using a calculation developed by A.A.S.H.T.O. is presented in Attachment Six. Due to the superior native sub - grade soils in Juniper Drive and the thicker layers of asphalt and crushed gravel cushion in the as -built road section, the Juniper Drive road section is actually better than the City standard road section. The as -built road section used in Juniper Drive should actually be a reason for the City to welcome the dedication of Juniper Drive as a public right-of-way rather than declining to do so. • Maximum permissible road grade was 6%. • As -constructed plans show that maximum road grade is 9%. Condition Number 7 of the Preliminary Plat Approval of the Juniper Bend subdivision states "the internal private road system shall be built to City of Kalispell standards and approved by the City's Public Works Department. Maximum grade of said road shall not exceed City design standards." The road design was reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department. The final plats for Juniper Bend were filed in three separate and distinct phases. Each time, the design engineer certified that the road design had been approved by the City of Kalispell. Each time Flathead Regional Development Office reported to the City of Kalispell that the internal street design had been approved by the City Public Works Department and that the final plat complied with Kalispell subdivision regulations. Each time the City Council voted to approve the final plat application. Mike Fraser told me that there was no question that the City approved the road design and that the design met the then current City standards. Mike admitted that his recollection of the details is weak due to the time elapsed between the time of approval and now, but if no variances are on record in the file for excessive slopes, than variances were not necessary and the design was in conformance to standards. The excessive road slopes have not stopped the City of Kalispell from accepting other newly constructed roadways. I spotted two such examples last week while driving through town. I assume a rigorous search would discover many others. The two examples I noticed are noted as follows. The first road is in the Willows subdivision off of Willow Glen Drive. This subdivision was created in 1999 so it is very new and should be subject to all the modern City requirements. Beargrass Lane, from Willow Glen Drive to Buttercup Loop, has a slope averaging more than 8% over most of its length. At the Page 6 of 6 October 28, 2003 — Memo to Duane Knutson — Juniper Bend intersection at the road's east end, the slope is 9.5%. This arrangement is worse than anything at Juniper Bend. The second example is Ridgeview Drive off of Grandview Drive (located just north of Juniper Bend on the west side of the road). The Ridgeview subdivision was annexed into the City of Kalispell about 1997. The annexation was initiated by the City of Kalispell, not the property owners. The slope of Ridgeview Drive is almost 7% from Grandview Drive west to the top of the hill. The final plats of Juniper Bend do not describe the roadway location in a recordable form. A separate survey would be required to split out the right-of- way from the common area of the subdivision. This is true. In my opinion, the final plats of the three phases of Juniper Bend do not contain enough information to define the location of the road right-of-way. A survey — probably an amended plat - would be required to establish the location of the right-of-way and provide the legal description of the property to be dedicated to the City. The preparation of the necessary survey should be relatively easy and should not be a reason for the City to deny acceptance of the roadway. It might be impossible to define a 60 feet wide right-of-way that would be useable, be in compliance with City subdivision requirements and reflect sound engineering practice. A 60 feet wide right-of-way was not necessary nor in conformance with City standards when Juniper Bend was created. As mentioned previously, Juniper Drive was classified as a local, non -through, curbed street per City standard Drawing R-8 and a right-of-way width of 40 feet was allowable. This roadway width was proposed in the application for the subdivision and was approved by the City of Kalispell. All the infrastructure of the subdivision was installed based upon a 40 feet roadway width. The Juniper Bend subdivision complied with all subdivision regulations based upon the 40 feet wide roadway. A retroactive imposition of a 60 feet right-of-way requirement would indeed make it impossible to define a right-of-way that meets City of Kalispell subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulation that would be impossible to meet would be front setbacks. Since all infrastructure is in place and no additional construction would be needed, a 40 feet wide right-of-way would be adequate from the standpoints of usability and sound engineering practice. The roadway width works fine now and its performance as a public right-of-way would be expected to be the same. ATTACHMENT ONE APPROVED PLAN SET - INITIALED COVER SHEET EQUIPMENT CONNECTION )TOR rV itiJOSTrT AR:\,? ! IGNT ?r,NCH CIRCUIT DITCH U W H W 0 ry W cd � W �j W 91 Rai W O U I D III DESCRIPTION ml i I SANITARY SEWER I i I STORM DRAIN MANHOLE o laioi iORCE MAIN cn �� �JN'ATER MAIN ' IRE HYDRANT oololi WATER VALVE J'v`AT E R SERVICE ml ;� ml CURB j FLAT OF GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS, PHASE l IN THE SE114 B SWI14 SEC 32, T.P9N, R2IW, PM, M., FLATHEAD CO. MONTANA See next sheet for K enlarged copy of roadway note. III A� ,.r�.wa ( k ct vri aura v<x ae p P a svxr nw •� - WiSI..-- - E EX6REEtt ...... ...... .Y.WtSy S Ipu, LSw.� rn e:9 4 c a ma 4PiVE• -n O c z_ m X co m z 0 90 ci D n m� G D r= i ^ mT YI N 0>> 0 z z z (nCn0 ATTACHMENT THREE RESOLUTION 4693 GLACIER VILLAGE GREEN ROADWAY DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 4593 A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF T:iy ROADWAYS IN GLACiSR VILLAGE GREENS AS DETAILED IN THE DEED ANM DEDICATION DATED APRIL 25, 2002, AND DECLARING AN EFFBCTIVE DATE. WFEREAS, on Novemcer 1, 2001, Glacier Village Greens was c___cially a:nexed _.to the City of Kalispell, and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2002, the Glacier Villace Greens Hcmeowners Assoc: iaticn issued a Deed of Convevprce ar.d Dedication_ to t o City of {alispell for all of the roadways conta_aed _n the a_=exed property. The Deed and Dedication is atzach.ed hereto as E h-bit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY = CI_v CJUICI OF 'f E CITY CF KA,1_5P vL, AS FOLLOWS_ SECTION I. That t. e a-nexed roadivays ir. Glacier Vi'_lage Gr=ens as I_Sted or. E:, hit 117,11 beCCP..e publlC property and be maintained by tha City of Kaliscell. SECTION II. This Resolution, shall become effective i m.ediately upcn passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSE= AIM A, PRCti D BY THE CI 'V CCj:NCIL PST SICN�D 3Y :�� �"GR THIS 6= DAY OF "�L=.Y, 2002. Paaeia B. ' ersedy Mayo ATTEST: eresftr'ha4�l�`�. City Clerk Oct-t0-03 07:254RI Fram-- T-405 P 003/003 F-441 DEED/DEDICATION For Value Received GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana nonprofit corporation, of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana 59901, does hereby convey, release remise and forever quit claim unto THE CITY OF KALISPELL, a Montana municipal corporation, the following described premises in Flathead County, Montana, to -wit: All of the streets and roadways of Glacier Village Greens Subdivision, Phase 1, 11, 111, MA, IIIB, IV, V, Vllt, IX, and X, according to the map, plats and amendments thereto, recorded among the land records of Flathead County, Montana. Said streets more particularly designated on said plats and amendments thereto as East and West Nicklaus Avenue, Palmer Drive, Ritzman Lane and Trevino Drive. To have and to hold, the above described streets and roadways, unto the said CITY OF KALISPELL, expressly dedicated to the City of Kalispell for the use of the public forever to be owned and maintained by said CITY OF KALISPELL. DATED this day of , f 2002. STATE OF MONTANA ) ss. County of Flathead GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. By: Pres nt On this .1_5 '` day of . 2002, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public four hf,Sta2f Montana, personally appeared Preside gerJ.a.alnown to me to he the person whose narne is subscribed to the toregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (""�`� � �� *�-r•—„ {Sea;} Nottaary Public for the State of Montana Residing at e4-171. , Montana My Commission expires: t %t /zL oQ a. school aged Children t 2. Fire Protection: ATTACHMENT FOUR The subdivision will RESOLUTION 4092 — Page 4 Only Department, The current street aeui4A, xo . ....... _ _- the previous preliminary plat submittal and offers improved access by emergency equipment. The area designated as a homeowner's recreation area is Inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Therefore, use of that area, and the type of structures allowed, will be restricted. Police Protection: The Kalispell Police Department can adequately serve the additional thirty-two townhouse units. No additional manpower or equipment will be necessary. Roads: The subject property has frontage on two County roads. Grandview lane, with a right-of-way of 60 feet, deadends near the southerly property line of the site. The developer will be required to improve this road to City of Kallspell local street standards, as it will serve as a major access to the development. Grandview Drive, which will carry all traffic to and from the site, is an improved County road with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. Using a figure of ten trips per day per unit, this development can expect to generate as many as 320 average daily trips on Grandview Drive, a designated collector street. The private roadway within the subdivision Kill be a fully -improved street with a paved travel surface of 40 24 feet, curb and gutter within a 40-foot right-of-way. The road will be required to be constructed to City standards, including maximum slope restrictions. 5. Water: City of Kalispell water is available. Each dwelling unit will be served by a main, in accordance with City standards. All main extensions will be the sole responsibility of the developer. A 6' main is located in the adjacent right-of-way. Seer: An 8" sanitary sewer main is located in the right-of-way of Grandview Drive. The proposed plat indicates an extension of that main to serve the subject property. Due to on -site topography, a lift station will be ATTACHMENT FIVE KALIPSELL STANDARD DRAWING R-8 a a ... n. a, N TE 40' R/W (See note fi2) OTE 2 ii 2 4' Min. 4' 2' 12 12, 2' 4' Max. Sidewalk s=2'% U; S=2% S=2i 4" Topsoil 2"(Compacted) 3"(Compacted) 4 Topsoil Asphalt cement J Base course 18" Min.(Compacted) select material. See note #6 NOTES: 1. Thicknesses of asphalt, base course and select material may be varied in accordance with the design criteria (DC-05). 2. Width of R/W may have to be increased due to road slopes, utilities or other requirements. 3. If a project plan incorporates a safe walkway/bikeway in other locations which will not require the non -motoring public to use the streets the City will consider elimination of the sidewalk. 4. No parking will be allowed on streets. Construction to include adequate signing for no parking. 5. All topsoiled areas to be seeded by developer. 6. The City may require a greater depth of select material if subsurface conditions are less than an A.A.S.H.T.O. soil classification A-4. 7. The City may accept an alternate street design from a professional engineer if the traffic loads and soil analysis determine different requirements. The final street design must be approved by the Director of Public Works or his ' representative. This cross-section requires City approval 'before incorporating with the drawings. It may be used only on cul-de-sac roads or loop roads beginning and ending on the same through road. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS LOCAL STREET�STREET CITY OF KALISPELL (NON —THROUGH, CURSED) R 1/31 ATTACHMENT SIX Juniper Bend Roadway Comparison Calculations City Standard Section versus As -Built Road City As Built Standard Roadway Section SNi Section AASHTO thickness thickness thickness co -efficient inches x co-ef inches SN; thickness x co-ef Layer ai Di a;D; Di a;D; AC 0.42 2 0.84 4 1.68 3/4" crushed 6.12 3 0.36 6 0.72 Sub -base 0.11 18 1.98 6 0.66 Native Soil` 0.055 7 0.39 Total Depth: 23 inches 23 inches Total Structural Number: SNT = ESN; = 3.18 SNT = ESN; = 3.45 Native soil underlying roadway was a pit run gravel (per TD&H) and is approxiamtely 200 feet thick. Strength used in this analysis for native pit run gravel is one half that of the compacted sub -base. Structural Number: SNT = a,D, + a2D2 + a3D3 + a,D, per AASHTO Guide of Design of Pavement Structures. The higher the SN, the longer the expected life of a given roadway section for a the same traffic loading. The as -built roadway section in Juniper Bend would be expected to last longer than the roadway section required for local steeets in the 1986 City of Kalispell standards.