12/28/00 Hansz to Wilson/Crosswell-Pack PUD ApplicationCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758
December 28, 2000
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5t' Avenue East
Kalispell, MT
59903
Reference: Crosswell/Pack PUD Application
Dear Narda:
This office has reviewed the information that accompanied the PUD application of
Crosswell/Pack 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
attribute to be considered. The annual water right for this proposed source must be of
sufficient size for it to be practical as an alternative municipal water supply. No data
was provided for this. Further, the well is located in an area where there is significant
remedial earthwork anticipated. The impacts of this remedial work on the well are not
known and must be addressed. In addition, the well appears to be situated at a point
where on -site drainage will collect for eventual seepage into the shallow aquifer. The
quantity of this stormwater is unknown and its quality is expected be extremely poor
which may pose a significant pollution threat to a water source located nearby. The
City will expect a specific completion date for all infrastructure improvements, as is
the case with the current PUD for this site.
® Sewer: Current records indicate the existing lift station is operating at a higher average
flow rate than indicated in the data supplied with this application. Additional peak
flows from this development, as suggested in the application could create a severe
operational problem. If this is determined to be the case then the operational
configuration and the scope of improvements required must be further analyzed to
identify an acceptable solution. This development may generate sufficient sewage flow
such that there is little or no remaining capacity to serve needs beyond this project or
between this project and the existing lift station. Additional information will be needed
to correctly determine the ability of all City facilities to serve this project and identify
deficiencies elsewhere in the system that may need to be addressed by applicant in
order to allow for service of this project.
® Storm Drainage: The aforementioned concerns regarding stormwater impacts on the
existing water well that might become a potential municipal water supply should be
recalled. In addition, the use of dry wells for stormwater disposal must be carefully
reviewed to ensure they do not become problematic. Stormwater generated from large
commercial sites is frequently contaminated with urban pollutants and very often
contains a high percentage of fine particulate material that can render an underground
seepage system ineffective in a relatively short period of time. We are concerned and
wish to ensure that a dry -well system or any other disposal system design adequately
addresses the long-term functionality of the system that serves a major commercial
site.
® Interior Drives: Access from US 93 and Reserve Drive is subject to review and
approval of the Montana Department of Transportation. Signalization of the two
referenced access points also will require approval of MDT. A comprehensive traffic
impact analysis is required to be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved
by the City and NOT. Access as indicated in the application does not appear to be
problematic but is dependent on the information provided in the traffic impact analysis.
The City recommends consolidating access to and from US 93 to two points by
eliminating the northernmost access near Ole's Country Store.
® Environmental Issues: This site is comprised of three parcels as shown on Sheet 1 of the
attached drawings. Parcels 1 and Z comprise properties commonly referred to as the Nupac
site. Parcel 3 is commonly referred to as the MDT site. Examination of the entire site during
the Domesite PUD process included Phase I environmental assessments of the Nupac and
MDT parcels. The Phase I assessment of the NIDT parcel did not recommend conducting a
Phase II 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 H 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 Crosswell/Pack 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 anything more at this time to move forward
on this application.
gineer
CC: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager