Staff Report/PUD Work SessionPlanning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2008 council work session
BACKGROUND: Gateway Properties, Inc. has requested a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) overlay zoning district on an 80.7t acre project site currently within city limits
zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential). The PUD will be known as Valley Ranch and
proposes 85 residential lots, 33 townhouse lots, a future assisted and independent living
facility with up to 104 units and an apartment/condominium lot capable of
accommodating 160 units. The PUD plan includes 21.2 acres of open space and parkland
on the project site as well as installation of landscaping and bike path along the project's
frontage of Highway 93.
The properties included in the proposed project can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and
Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7t acre project site
is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 11/2 miles north of the intersection
of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of
highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home
Outfitters. From the highway, the project site extends east and south wrapping around
the southern boundary of the Ponderosa Estates subdivision.
The planning board held a public hearing on the PUD request on August 12th. During the
public hearing the board heard from the developer's agent, who provided a brief overview
of the project, and two members of the public. Public comments included restricting
vehicle access between Valley Ranch and the Ponderosa Subdivision and the possibility of
revising the apartment component of the project. A suggestion included replacing the
apartment units with a smaller single-family cottage style development which includes a
shared common area as the front yard.
After the public hearing was closed the planning board discussed whether the amount of
parkland was appropriate and the need for sewer upgrades south of the site for the project
to work. A brief discussion was also held on whether the recommended timelines attached
with the PUD were appropriate. The planning board ultimately recommended the council
consider approving the PUD with the recommended staff conditions on a vote of 6 to 1.
RECOADIENDATION: Review the application and raise any issues that the council feels
should be addressed.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council.
Respectfully submin
Sean Conrad
Senior Planner
Report compiled: August 26, 2008
ames . Patncl-
City Manager
Attachments: Valley Ranch application materials
Staff report dated August 6, 2008
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
•::J 6 1
•sr r:
r
2008AUGUST 6,
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the
request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a property located on the east side of
Highway 93 approximately 11/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West
Reserve Drive. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for
August 12, 2008, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The
planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final
action.
A. Petitioner and Owners: Gateway Properties, Inc.
354 Plantation Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 249-7317
TechnicalAssistance: Sitescape Associates
P.O. Box 1417
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3492
B. Nature of the Request: The property owners have requested a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay zoning district on the 80.7t acre project site. The PUD
will be known as Valley Ranch which proposes 85 residential lots, 33 townhouse
lots, a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 104 units and an
apartment/condominium lot capable of accommodating 160 units. The PUD plan
calls for 21.2 acres of open space and parkland on the project site. The proposed
plan departs from the requested zoning of R-2 with regards to uses permitted within
the zoning district and minimum lot area. A detailed discussion of the proposed
deviations from the R-2 zoning district can be found on page 7.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The properties included in the
proposed project can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract 2BC in Section 19,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7t acre project site is located on the
east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of
Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet
of highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home
Outfitters. From the highway, the project site extends east and south wrapping
around the southern boundary of the Ponderosa subdivision.
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The property is within the city limits and is zoned
R-2 (Single Family Residential). The R-2 zoning district is intended primarily for
detached single-family dwellings. It has a minimum lot size requirement of 9,600
square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front
and 10 feet on the sides and rear.
The 80.7± acre project site is currently undeveloped. The land is level for the most
part with a small hill along the western boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 93.
Portions of the eastern boundary of the project site are at the base of another small
hill, the majority of which makes up the area developed with the Ponderosa
Subdivision, a single-family residential subdivision located in the county.
North: Single-family homes and commercial business, County B-1 and
County R-1 zoning
East: Single-family homes; County R-1 and SAG-10 zoning
South: Agricultural lands; City R-3/PUD
West: Commercial businesses and National Guard Armory; County SAG-10
zoning
F. General Land Use Character: This site is in a mixed use area generally
characterized as agricultural lands mixed with single family residences to the east
and north of the site. Immediately south of the site is a large agricultural tract of
land within the city limits. Although the land is currently in agricultural
production a lifestyle center and associated commercial development totaling 1.8
million square feet as well as 632 residences has been approved for this property.
To the west, along Highway 93, are existing commercial businesses and a church.
Across Highway 93, on its west side, is a private golf course. The property has
been in agricultural production for the last several decades. The site is for the
most part level with slopes along the western and eastern boundaries. Pine trees
with an understory of grasses are located in the sloped portions of the site.
G. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
Private contractor
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Gas:
NorthWestern Energy
Telephone:
CenturyTel
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
• r • •- • a t
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303,
M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the
itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.30.020, Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance.
Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy?
2
On August 7, 2006 the Kalispell City Council adopted Resolution 5129B which
amended the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use map north to the
intersection of Highway 93 and Church Drive. On the amended land use map the
80.7f acre project site is designated suburban residential with typical densities of
up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre.
The current R-2 zoning district provides primarily for detached single-family
dwellings. It has a minimum lot size requirement of 9,600 square feet and a
minimum lot width of 70 feet. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front and 10 feet on the
sides and rear. The requested PUD would deviate from the minimum lot size and
uses within the R-2 including an assisted and independent living facility and
apartment/condominium development. Both of these types of housing are not
permitted in the R-2 zoning district.
The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, Chapter 3, Policy 9 states in part that
suburban housing densities should not exceed two to four dwellings per gross
acre. The proposed PUD includes a combination of single family residential
homes, apartment/condominium lot and townhouse lots for a total number of
278 dwelling units on 75.8 acre portion of the project site. The 80 assisted and
24 independent living units are proposed on the remaining 4.9 acre lot.
The purpose of restricting the density to a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre
is to reduce the impacts that density brings to an area. This includes an obvious
increase in population which in turn creates increases in automobile traffic,
paved surfaces, noise, outdoor lighting and need for parkland and open space
areas. The proposed 278 dwelling units are comprised of the single family
residential homes, apartment/condominium units and townhomes. These units
will bring the above mentioned impacts to the immediate area. Based on the 278
dwelling units over 75.8 acres, the gross residential density is 3.6 dwelling units
per acre.
The assisted and independent living units should be considered a stand alone use
outside of the typical impacts associated with other residential uses on the project
site. The proposed units will provide homes for people who do not have children
and many of whom are single. Traffic impacts are generally much lower as many
residents do not drive. Other impacts which can be associated with typical homes
as described above are limited or non-existent. Therefore, the planning
department's position is the overall density of the project should be considered at
3.6 dwelling units per acre, in line with the suburban residential land use
designation.
Subsection b of Policy 9 further states that the suburban residential designation
is intended to reduce density and development impacts in sensitive areas and
existing rural neighborhoods. The proposed PUD complies with this policy by
providing for larger lots, varying between 15,OOOt square feet to 30,OOOt square
feet adjacent to the Ponderosa subdivision, a rural neighborhood platted in the
late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots vary between one-half acre to one acre in size.
The larger lots would provide a transition between the Ponderosa subdivision and
the smaller lots, apartments, and assisted/independent living units proposed in
the interior of the PUD layout.
N
Chapter 3, Policy 2 of the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 states, "Encourage the
development of urban residential neighborhoods as the primary residential land
use pattern in the growth policy area by allowing urban residential densities in
areas designated as suburban residential provided the development is consistent
with the character of the area and public services are adequate."
Recent changes in land use include the 485 acres south of the project site in
which the city council acted on an annexation, zoning and PUD overlay for the
Glacier Town Center earlier this year. The Glacier Town Center project includes
residential and commercial development comprised of 632 dwelling units and
approximately 1.8 million square feet of commercial and office space. Once
developed, the rural/suburban area will be residential and commercial making
the Valley Ranch development blend with the character of the area.
Water and sewer main lines have also been extended north from Highway 93 and
West Reserve Drive along the Highway 93 right-of-way to serve the Silverbrook
subdivision. The first phase of this subdivision has received final plat approval
from the city council this year and the water and sewer lines can be accessed by
the developers of Valley Ranch.
With the availability of public services and the changing character of the area, a
mix of housing types is appropriate for this area. The Valley Ranch project has
incorporated larger lots and open space areas between it and the existing
Ponderosa subdivision. The denser housing (assisted and independent living and
apartment units) are located more centrally within the project.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed PUD zoning district can be found to
comply with the suburban residential land use designation and implement the
policies regarding housing as found in Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
As part of the overall project proposal, the developer conducted a traffic impact study
to provide possible measures to mitigate the increase in traffic the development
proposal will have on Highway 93. It can be anticipated that with development of the
property there will be increased traffic impacts in the area due to the relatively low
density of the area currently and the relatively higher density requested under the
PUD zoning. Additionally, through the PUD and subsequent subdivision review
process conditions will be recommended to insure that existing streets are upgraded
and new traffic routes are provided to lessen congestion in the streets. A full
discussion of the traffic impact study and recommended mitigation measures can be
found under the review for the PUD in this staff report.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
At the time this property is developed, the property owners will be required to
insure that there is adequate infrastructure in the case of an emergency. There
are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the
public. New construction will be required to be in compliance with the building
safety codes of the city. All municipal services including police and fire
0
protection, water and sewer service is available to the property. The site is within
the immediate service area of the new north Kalispell fire station.
4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare?
The requested zoning classifications will promote the health and general welfare
by restricting land uses to those which would be compatible with the adjoining
properties and provides a place for new housing in the community.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure adequate light and air
is provided.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land?
As previously noted, this area has been anticipated for suburban residential
development. The anticipated densities of the proposed zoning district can be
found to be consistent with the land use designation for the site. All public
services and facilities will be available to serve this property. An overcrowding of
land would occur if infrastructure were inadequate to accommodate the
development in the area. This is unlikely.
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
An increase in the number and concentration of people in the area will result with the
approval of the requested PUD. However, the intensity of the uses of the property
would be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and
facilities as well as compliance with established design standards. The design
standards and availability of utilities would provide the infrastructure needed to
insure that there will not be an overcrowding of the land or undue concentration of
people. Minimum lot standards and use standards as well as subdivision
development standards will avoid the undue concentration of people at the time
the property is further developed.
8. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
Municipal water and sewer have been extended along Highway 93 past the site to the
Silverbrook Estates subdivision, located at the intersection of Church Drive and
Highway 93. The water and sewer lines have been sized to accommodate this
development. The developer would need to extend the needed city services that are
not currently extended to the property at the developers' expense and in accordance
with the city's policies and standards. This most likely includes a road connection
south to the future Rose Crossing extension between Whitefish Stage Road and
Highway 93.
New improvements to the property such as roads, water, sewer, parks and drainage
would be installed in accordance with city policies and standards at the developers'
expense prior to subdivision approval thereby insuring that there is adequate
5
provision of services at the site prior to development. Fire, police, ambulance and
public access are adequate to accommodate potential impacts associated with the
development of this site. There will be impacts to services that can be anticipated as
a result of this proposal which can be met by the city. All public services and
facilities are currently available or can be provided to the property.
9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The 80.7 acre site is fairly level throughout with a small hill on the western
boundary of the site and some moderate slopes along the eastern boundary of the
site. The proposed PUD zoning would encompass the entire project site. Based
on the proposed uses and densities of the PUD, the requested zoning does give
consideration to the particular suitability of the property for the anticipated uses.
10. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The general character of the area is a mix of agricultural, commercial and rural
residential development. The proposed zoning allows this development to address
needs within the community for a variety of housing types in reasonable proximity to
the city core and future commercial and residential development. Availability of
public water and sewer to the area indicate that this type of development will
continue to occur on the urban fringes of the community. The proposed PUD zoning
and PUD master plan of the property gives reasonable consideration to the character
of the district.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The development anticipated under the proposed zoning is more intensive than the
land uses currently surrounding the project site. City standards will insure that there
is high quality development. This in turn will maintain the value of buildings and
homes in the area.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the municipality?
Suburban residential development is encouraged in areas were services and
facilities are available or can be extended to serve developments such as the
proposed PUD request. When the city council adopted the growth policy
amendment for this area and designated the 80.7f acre project site as Suburban
Residential, the council determined at that time suburban residential
development was the most appropriate use of this land. The proposed PUD zoning
is consistent with the growth policy plan.
Project Narrative: Valley Ranch is a residential planned unit development (PUD)
N
proposed on an 80.7 acre property within the city limits zoned R-2. The proposed
PUD would allow a variety of residential uses on the 80.7 acre project site not
currently permitted within the R-2 zoning district. The PUD request includes:
® 85 single-family residential lots
® 33 townhouse lots
® 160 apartment/condominium units
® 80 assisted and 24 independent living units.
The 85 residential lots would vary in size from 8,100 square feet to 38,200 square
feet. The 33 proposed townhouse lots would range in size from approximately 3,300
square feet to 7,400 square feet.
The 160 apartment/condominium units are proposed on an 8.7 acre property on the
west side of the project site. The units would be located in buildings ranging from
an 8-plex to 24-plex with access provided from Round -Up Road on the east and
Whitehall Road on the south. A club house will also be part of the
apartment/condominium project. The clubhouse will be between 2,500 and 3,000
square feet in area and have bathroom and kitchenette facilities in addition to
multipurpose rooms for use of residents of the apartment/condominium complex.
The building will not be available to the general public.
The assisted and independent living facility is proposed in the south half of the
project site, east of the apartment units. The facility would encompass
approximately 4.9 acres. The assisted living facility would be a two-story complex
similar to the Riverside Assisted Living in Whitefish. The independent living units
will be located on the same 4.9 acre lot and will include two 12-plex buildings
similar in style to the apartment/ condominium units proposed west of this site.
Details on the assisted and independent living facilities are preliminary at this point
and the developer is requesting that if approved, these facilities will come back for
council review prior to issuance of a building permit as an amendment to the PUD.
The intent of the PUD request is to secure the zoning and requested deviations
included in the PUD to allow a future subdivision on the 80.7 acre site. The
subdivision will comply with the plan shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit
Development.
In order to allow the design of the future subdivision shown as part of the
application, the proposed PUD seeks five deviations or relaxations from the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. The five relaxations are as follows:
1. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district) to allow single family residential lots below the minimum lot size.
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) for permitting townhouse units within. the R-2 zoning district.
3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning
district) to permit assisted and independent living units and
apartment/ condominium units in the R-2 zoning district.
4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (5) (Permitted lot coverage of 35%)
7
to permit the townhouse lots to increase the lot coverage to 45%.
5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.24.090 (Permitted signs in Zones R-1, R-2,
R-3 and R-4) to permit signs for the apartment/condominiums and
assisted/independent living facility.
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2) of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the PUD 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
of the neighborhood and the environmental values of an area. The zoning ordinance has
a provision for the creation of a PUD district upon 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:
limited1. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not
to, density, bulk and use, and thereasonsr such departures
or •': deer; • to be public r:
As stated above the owners are requesting five relaxations in the zoning ordinance.
Below are the five relaxations requested with planning staffs comments in italics.
1. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created
in the R-2 zoning district. This is a mixed residential development which
proposes small single family lots as well as a mix of townhomes and
apartment/condominium development. The owners are requesting a minimum lot
size of 8,146 square feet for a detached, single family residence and lots ranging
in size from 3,300 square feet to 7,400 square feet for townhouse units.
The proposed reduction in lot sizes would allow the overall density of the
subdivision to be strategically shifted. The PUD would create smaller lots, however,
the developers have offset the smaller lots by creating larger lots, 1/3 of an acre
and larger, along the northern and eastern project boundaries. These larger lots
would abut existing lots within the Ponderosa subdivision and provide for a
transition from the smaller single family and townhouse lots within the project site
to the larger % acre to 1 acre lots within the Ponderosa subdivision. The project will
then transition southerly proposing smaller than minimum R-2 lots, transitioning to
townhouses, apartment/condominium site and the assisted living development as
the project approaches the Glacier Town Center Development to the south. In
addition, the project proposes 21.2± acres of open space and park area totaling
W
approximately 26% of the site to mitigate the more dense development aspects of the
project.
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district)
Townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more attached units are allowed as
a conditional use requiring a permit be secured prior to creating the townhouse
lots. The developer is requesting that the townhouse lots be a permitted use
rather than a conditional use.
The proposed PUD would allow 33 townhouse lots or roughly 8 percent of the total
number of dwelling units proposed as part of the Valley Ranch project. The
developers have included in the project proposal 21.2± acres of open space and
parkland. Planning staff would consider the amount of open space and parkland a
reasonable offset to permit the 33 townhouse lots as part of the project proposal. In
addition, the overall PUD provides lots two to three times the minimum size to buffer
larger lot development to the north.
The zoning ordinance considers townhouse lots as sublots, defined as a portion of a
platted lot designated for separate ownership from other portions of the lot and used
for townhouse or other construction that has separate ownership of parcels. Section
27.22.130 of the zoning ordinance requires the sublots have minimum lot size of
2, 000 square feet and the parent lot, a lot that comprises the two or more sublots,
be at least 6, 000 square feet in size. The proposed townhouse lots exceed the
zoning ordinances criteria for size of both the sublot and parent lot. However, to
allow some flexibility, the developer may reduce the sizes of the townhouse lots but
in no case can they be below 2, 000 square feet and the parent lot must be at least
6, 000 square feet.
3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning
district)
The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with
up to 104 units and a 160 unit apartment or condominium complex be permitted
within the R-2 zoning district. Currently both the assisted and independent living
facility and apartment complexes are not permitted or conditionally permitted
within the R-2 zoning district.
Assisted and independent living facilities are currently permitted as a conditional
use within the low and medium density residential apartment zoning districts and
the H-1 (Health Care) zoning district. The proposed assisted and independent living
facility would take up an area approximately 4.9 acres or roughly 6 percent of the
entire site. This facility would provide options for residents in the area that may
want to live close to family residing in homes to the south or east within the same
subdivision. Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy, Goal 1 states, "Provide an
adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present and future
residents in terms of cost, type, design and location. " The incorporation of the
assisted and independent living facility into the overall project would help the PUD
achieve this goal.
E
The plans submitted for the assisted/independent living facility include the general
layout on the 4.9 acre tract of land and some general elevation concepts the future
buildings will incorporate. The developer is requesting that once the facility is closer
to actually being constructed, the developer will resubmit specific plans as an
amendment to the PUD. The plans would provide more specific details regarding
architecture, access, parking, landscaping and screening and other impacts as
deemed appropriate by the staff. The amended PUD request would then come
before the city council for approval.
Apartment or condominium units are a conditional use in the RA (apartment) zoning
districts. The developer is requesting approval to place 160
apartment/condominium units on an 8.7 acre tract of land located centrally within
the Valley Ranch project. As stated above for the assisted and independent living
facilities, the Kalispell Growth Policy encourages a mix of housing types. .Higher
density housing is desirable as recent approvals for the Glacier Town Center, which
includes over one million square feet of commercial retail and office space, is located
approximately 1/ mile south. The planning department encourages a variety of
housing options in such close proximity to future commercial and retail center.
The current site plan shows the general location of the apartment/condominium
buildings. Planning staff is recommending as a condition of approval that, prior to
issuance of a building permit for each of the units, the plans incorporate bike racks,
sidewalks, a landscaping and irrigation plan, and provide a minimum separation
between each of the buildings. The minimum separation between buildings is
proposed at 20 feet from eave to eave. The current R-2 zoning setbacks would be
required along the perimeter of the 8.7 acre tract of land.
4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (5) (Permitted lot coverage of 35%)
to permit the townhouse lots to increase the lot coverage to 45%.
The R-2 zoning district has a maximum lot coverage of 35%. The developer is
requesting the permitted lot coverage be increased on the townhouse lots to 45%.
The purpose of the requested lot coverage increase is to provide for greater options
for the building foot print and in turn a range of interior/exterior space.
Planning staff does not have an issue with the requested increase in lot coverage for
the townhouse lots. Past projects within the city have had to request lot coverage
increases for their townhouse lots because at 35% on a smaller sub lot, this may not
afford the builder or lot owner the flexibility in design for a home and garage. An
increase to 45% would still maintain the setbacks established in the R-2 zoning
district and not negatively impact surrounding residential development. The size of
the lot and the housing product the developer is proposing would warrant an
increase in lot coverage. The greater lot coverage is ultimately off -set by the 25%
open space and recreational component of the project.
5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.24.090 (Permitted signs in Zones R-1, R-2,
R-3 and R-4) to permit signs for the apartment/ condominiums and
assisted/independent living facility.
10
The developer is requesting two signs for the condo/apartment area; one 24
square foot sign to be placed at the southernmost entry and one 10 square foot
sign to be placed at the northernmost entry. Likewise, the developer is also
requesting two 10 square foot entry signs at each of the two entries for the
assisted living complex.
Planning staff acknowledges the need for some signs to identify the apartment units
and assisted/independent living facility and supports the request to provide for
signs at the major entrances to these building complexes. One 24 square foot sign
is appropriate for the scale of the apartment/condo lot. Likewise, two 10 square
foot signs at the entrances to the assisted and independent living facility would also
be appropriate.
Planning staff is also recommending the planning board and city council consider
permitting a maximum of two on -site marketing signs for the development. The
signs would have a maximum size of 64 square feet and only one sign would be
permitted along Highway 93. With larger developments, on -site signs identifying
the project has been an industry standard. This recommendation seeks to
acknowledge practices that already occur in developments and place parameters
around such signage.
The proposed PUD is deemed to be in the public interest because it provides housing
options in an area of the city for which the type of density proposed has been
anticipated. The design serves to shift density and in doing so this achieves significant
open space and an improved overall design. The PUD provides more than the minimum
amount of parks and open space with improvements to said park land to be open to the
general public.
Five proposed townhouse lots in phase 3 are shown on the preliminary PUD plan with
their sole means of access by way of an alley. The Kalispell Subdivision Regulations,
section 3.08, Access, state that each lot shall have legal and physical access and must
abut and have access to a public or private street or road. Alleys and emergency
secondary access roads shall not be used to provide the primary means of access to a
lot.
The five townhouse lots in question, lots 23-25, 27 and 28 would have direct access onto
an alley only. After discussions with the developer and the city's site review committee,
the Kalispell Planning Department is recommending a road extension in the area of lot
64 south to the projects boundary with assessor's tract 3BA. The five townhouse lots
could then be realigned with this new road segment and have direct access off of the
road.
The new road segment would serve two purposes. First, the roadway will provide access
to the five townhouse lots which meets the requirement of the subdivision regulations.
The second purpose is to accommodate a future roadway from this area of phase 3
south to Whitehall Road via the four tracts of land outside of the Valley Ranch PUD
boundary. The realignment of lots and new roadway will be included in the
recommended conditions of approval for the project.
11
E4 . e3 6 6' Yr
VPT
- ,
fa
WO
t tt. Park RM
rll
' V
",t k ' °i80AparEletb
Figure 1: This figure illustrates the discussion above
regarding the recommendation to adjust several
townhouse lots and the road alignment in the northwest
corner of the project. The solid lines illustrate the
realigned road with the dashed lines illustrating possible
future road connections with lots to the south.
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;
The PUD plan calls out 21.2t acres of open space and parkland throughout the 80.7
acre site. The 21.2t acres are in the form of neighborhood parks, perimeter buffers and
accent areas at project gateways. The application states that the open space areas will
be governed by a homeowner's association with portions of the large open space/park
areas offered to the City of Kalispell for public park space.
The Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development plan shows six areas labeled on the plan as
park area. These park areas range in size from approximately 34,800 square feet to
eight acres in size. The park areas, as shown on the plan, are spread throughout the
proposed project with a buffer area varying from 15 feet in width to 100 feet located
along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site to provide some separation from
the project site and the adjacent subdivision. One of the larger park areas proposed is
adjacent to the park area of the Ponderosa subdivision. The Ponderosa Park is privately
owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The developer has proposed a
large park area next to the existing park within the Ponderosa subdivision to allow for a
generous sized open space transition between the two residential developments.
The proposed 21.2t acres of open space and parkland are adequate to provide for the
active and passive recreational uses within the residential PUD. The PUD request would
allow 85 residential lots, 33 townhouse lots, 160 apartment/condominium units and 80
assisted and 24 independent living units for a total of 382 dwelling units. Section
3.19(A)(2) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations requires the subdivider to dedicate to
12
the City a cash or land dedication equal to 0.03 acres per dwelling unit when residential
densities in a proposed subdivision exceed 11,880 square feet per dwelling unit. This
equates to a.cash or land dedication equal to 11.46 acres. Although both the
apartment/condominium and the assisted and independent living units technically
would not be included in this calculation because no land is being subdivided to
accommodate those units, the PUD still requires the city to address the open space
needs of the development as a whole. Therefore, these units have been included in the
open space review.
The proposed 21.2± acres exceed the minimum land dedication for parks under the
subdivision regulations and can be considered appropriate for the amount of dwelling
units proposed. However, of the 21.2± acres proposed as open space and parkland, at a
minimum, 11.46 acres should be improved parkland with irrigation, landscaping, play
equipment and other amenities and not simply left as passive open space.
The Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department and Bruce Lutz of Sitescape Associates,
the consultant for Gateway Properties, reviewed the proposed PUD park plan. The parks
department agreed that the 8 acre .park, the 3.3 acre linear park along the south
boundary of Ponderosa Estates and the 1.5 acre park next to the assisted living facility
would be acceptable as city parks. Improvements recommended by the Parks
Department for these three parks are as follows:
1) A trail starting at the northwest corner of the PUD and connecting with a high way
side trail aligned through the 8 acre park, through the linear park and connecting
via the sidewalks along Sun Prairie Court with the 1.5 acre park adjacent to the
Assisted Living Complex. The trail should be paved to an 8 foot width on the
interior of the site and 10 feet wide adjacent to the highway.
2) Provide easements for a trail adjacent to Highway 93 along the northwestern
portion of Valley Ranch.
3) Provide landscaping and irrigation in the public park areas acceptable to the
Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department.
4) Provide one tennis court, one 20 foot diameter shelter/pavilion, a hard -surface
multi -purpose court and a 5-12 year -old playground in the 8 acre public park.
5) Provide a 12-14 foot diameter shelter and a 2-5 year -old tot lot in the 1.5 acre
park.
6) Provide benches in each of the parks along the trail and benches along the trail in
the linear park.
The dedication and improvement of these three parks exceeds the minimum 11.46 acres
required for parkland dedication based on the 382 living units proposed.
The department further recommends that the highway buffer and trail along Highway 93
and the 0.8 acre homeowner's park immediately north of the 8.7 acre
apartment/condominium lot be improved with phase 1. Improving the highway buffer
area will establish the bike path and provide for further trail expansion to the north or
south should those properties develop into the city prior to construction of phase 3. The
13
addition of the 0.8 acre homeowner's park will provide recreational opportunities next to
the highest density housing on the project site. Although an additional 1.5 acre park
will be developed with phase 1, the majority of parkland is included in phases 2 and 3.
However, the majority of dwelling units on the site are proposed within phase 1 and,
therefore, there is a greater need to establish more parkland than what is shown on the
proposed phasing plan.
A homeowners association will be created to maintain the open space and several of the
park areas shown on the PUD plan. The department is recommending the city take
ownership and maintenance of the three parks within the Valley Ranch PUD after all
improvements are in place. The Department is also recommending a park maintenance
district be formed in accordance with section 7-12-4001 Montana Code Annotated in
order to provide funding for the on -going maintenance of the park areas.
As currently proposed, the future homeowners association would be set up to maintain
the open space and other park areas within the future subdivisions on the project site.
These areas include the highway buffer, designated park areas not proposed to be owned
and maintained by the city and all open space areas shown on the PUD plan. The
majority of the open space, buffer and park areas under the homeowners association are
located on the boundaries of the project site. It is therefore imperative that these areas
be well maintained for the visual aspect of the Valley Ranch project from adjacent
properties and the highway, the safety of the pedestrian paths and the on -going
functionality of the storm water facilities. Staff is recommending that a condition be
added to the PUD which would incorporate the highway buffer, park areas and open
space of the Valley Ranch project into the park maintenance district in the event the
homeowners association fails to maintain its properties.
The Kalispell Growth Policy, Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, Policy 3.i.i
recommends a minimum 100-150 foot buffer be provided for major entrances. The PUD
proposes a 100-foot buffer as well as a passive park area along the project's Highway 93
frontage. This buffer area exceeds the minimum requirements under Policy 3.i.i and
provides for the retention of the west half of a small hill adjacent to Highway 93. The hill
is covered in grass with more than a dozen large ponderosa pines. Removal of some of
the pines will be required to accommodate the proposed housing on the east side of the
hill but the retention of the west half of the hill and trees will provide for a visual buffer
and noise break between lots located off of Plentywood Loop.
14
Figure 2: View of the open space/parkland adjacent to Highway 93 looking south
towards Kalispell. Highway 93 is just outside the picture frame on the right.
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;
A. Public Services
The extension of water and sewer to the site will be required to serve the development.
The application states that an 8-inch water main will be installed as part of the internal
water distribution system. The 8-inch water main will connect to an existing 14-inch
transmission pipeline within the Highway 93 right-of-way.
Sewage collection will be provided by an 8-inch diameter or larger gravity sewer
collection main that will drain to an existing 18-inch sewer main located on the east side
of the Highway 93 right-of-way. Two sewage pump stations may be necessary to serve
those areas that cannot reach the 18-inch sewer main by gravity flow. One of the lift
stations would be located near the intersection of Whitehall Road and Round -Up Road.
The other lift station would be located to the north at the intersection of Plentywood Loop
and Round -Up Road. Due to the visual presence and fencing accompanying a typical lift
station, a recommended condition of approval for the PUD would require a landscaping
plan be provided as part of the preliminary plat of the future subdivision and
implemented prior to final plat approval. The landscaping would help to screen the lift
station from residents, pedestrians and vehicular traffic coming into and out of the
subdivision.
Presently, sewage from Silverbrook Subdivision travels south within the 18-inch sewer to
a sewage pumping station located north of the Stillwater River and West of U.S. Highway
15
93 thence by force main and a gravity main to a lift station at the intersection of
Highway 93 and Grandview Drive. The existing downstream sanitary sewer collection
system (downstream of the Grandview pumping station) does not have the capacity to
accommodate the sewer flows from this or any new development generating sewer flows
toward the sewage pumping station located at the intersection of U.S. 93 and Grandview
Drive.
The Kalispell Public Works Department has stated that additional off -site improvements
are necessary to convey sewage from the Valley Ranch project and other development in
this area to the waste water treatment plant, located approximately 5 1/2 miles south.
The application states, "the City of Kalispell is in the best position to make the necessary
improvements happen and must focus some energy on the process sometime soon if the
piping is to be in place when needed to meet the time frames of the various projects
already approved and those contemplated in the near future."
Currently, the city is not in the position to build the needed off -site improvements to
accommodate this and other larger scale developments in the area. The developer is in
the best position for making the improvements, since the city does not have any
financial interest in the proposed development. Therefore, the department is
recommending that upon submitting a preliminary plat application for each phase the
developer provide the department with a plan of how sewage will be conveyed to the
sewer treatment plant. The plan, once reviewed and approved by the department, would
be required to be installed prior to final plat approval.
The proposed storm water management plan will collect and convey storm water runoff
from the streets and alleys to a number of ponds located in open space or parklands
throughout the site. Each of the ponds will hold storm water for that immediate area
and allow it to slowly percolate into the ground.
The department is recommending that the developer submit a concept drainage report
for each of the preliminary plat submittals. The concept drainage report will be used by
staff to preliminarily assess the drainage requirements for the subsequent subdivisions
on the project site. The purpose of the concept drainage report is to demonstrate
that the proposed drainage facilities are feasible with respect to design, construction,
and maintenance. With a concept drainage report the developer and department can
better address storm water management techniques and identify the best areas for the
collection and storage of storm water.
As part of the preliminary plat application of phase 1 the developer will need to submit
an overall storm water plan (for the entire development) along with the concept drainage
report. The developer also needs to recognize that off -site improvements may be
required to convey storm water to existing or proposed facilities.
The City of Kalispell has required past developments to complete a minimum of two-
thirds of the necessary public infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.) prior to filing the
final plat for subsequent subdivisions. This has been includes in the list of conditions to
insure that, prior to issuing a building permit on a new lot, there is access which meets
the fire department's minimum standards as well as adequate water and sewer services.
In the past, the city has allowed subdivisions to file a final plat and subsequent home
construction to begin prior to a majority of the infrastructure installed. Problems have
occurred when new homes were occupied and there was insufficient water for fire
16
suppression and/or sewer mains were not working properly. Therefore, in order to
provide adequate services to the subdivision at the time the lots are created, staff is
recommending a condition requiring a minimum of two-thirds of the infrastructure be
installed prior to final plat. Included in the two-thirds infrastructure requirement both
the water and sewer systems serving each phase will need to be operational operational.
The development has provided for individual automobiles and pedestrian and bicycle
traffic in the PUD proposal. To provide for a greater diversity of transportation options
planning staff would recommend that the developer work with Eagle Transit to establish
bus stop locations throughout the project site. Eagle Transit, a public transportation
program that provides transportation in a safe manner for the transportation -
disadvantaged and the general public of Flathead County, has recently incorporated a
fixed route within the County and has several bus stops within Kalispell.
After reviewing the proposed project, Eagle Transit staff is recommending one and
possibly two bus station sites within the project. Staff would also recommend that the
approved bus stop locations be improved in accordance with Eagle Transit's
requirements which may include a bus shelter. This recommendation complies with
Goal 3 of Chapter 10 of the Kalispell Growth Policy which states, "Provide Greater
Diversity in Transportation Options."
B. Control over vehicular traffic
The developer hired WGM Group, Inc. of Missoula to conduct a traffic impact study for
the proposed project. The traffic impact study determined weekday average daily traffic
to be approximately 2,500 vehicles trips. The majority of these trips, approximately
80%, during peak traffic hours are anticipated to travel south of the project site.
As a result of the traffic impact study the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development layout
shows two access points along Highway 93 that would be 3/4 turning movements at this
time (allowing left and right -turns in and right -turns out, but prohibiting left turns out
for traffic to travel southbound on Highway 93). A full movement intersection onto
Highway 93, which would allow traffic to travel south from the project site is not
recommended. Due to the access limitations to the site the traffic impact study
recommends a connection with the commercially zoned property immediately south of
the project site when the site is developed. A connection to the south would provide the
project site with a connection with Rose Crossing and a potential future signalized
intersection of Rose Crossing and Highway 93. This will provide a full movement
intersection that has a higher level of service to accommodate south bound traffic from
the site.
Based on the traffic impact study, city staff is recommending that a condition of the PUD
require the future subdivision on this site not be given final plat approval until a
connection is made to the south where a full movement intersection would be provided.
This future roadway connection will need to be constructed to city standards and be
adequate to handle the volume of traffic generated by this development and subsequent
development in the immediate area.
The project design also includes the use of alleys on the smaller detached single-family
lots and the townhouse lots. With the use of alleys planning staff is recommending the
power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines normally placed just outside the
road right-of-way instead be located within the alley right-of-way. This would place
17
potential electrical and phone pedestals in the alley preventing the street sides of the lots
from being obscured with utility boxes and pedestals.
After reviewing the proposed PUD plan the Kalispell Fire Department is recommending
that Whitehall Road, from the west end of the apartment/ condominium lot, to Highway
93 be improved to carry emergency vehicles. The emergency access will need to meet
fire code standards. The emergency vehicle access will be required as part of the
preliminary plat of phase 1 based on the following subdivision regulations:
Section 3.08(D) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations states that two or more vehicular
accesses or separate multi ingress -egress into a subdivision are required when one or more
of the following considerations are present:
1. Where the primary access road is over 1,500 feet long.
2. Where a primary access road is 1,000 to 1,500 feet long and it serves initially or in
the future at least 20 residential lots or 40 residential dwelling units.
3. Where safe and convenient access and emergency vehicle circulation dictate.
Upon reviewing the PUD plan the Kalispell Public Works Department is recommending
the following conditions be placed on the PUD. These conditions will be placed on the
preliminary plat for phase 1 to insure future road and utility connects to adjacent
properties.
® Round -Up Road must be built to the southern end of the project site boundary
with phase 1. This will solidify the future connection with the residential
development south of the project site and provide an outlet for the alley serving
lots 34-39 in phase 1.
® Whitehall Road must be constructed to city standards to the eastern boundary of
the project site instead of the reduced roadway shown on the PUD plan.
The Kalispell Planning Department is recommending an undefined 60-foot wide public
road and utility easement be provided along the east side of Round -Up Road in the park
area between lots 56 and 57. The easement would be undefined at this point and on
future subdivision plats. The purpose of the easement is to provide a future alternative
route out of the Ponderosa subdivision. Currently, if residents of Ponderosa choose to
travel south to Kalispell their options are to travel west to the intersection of Highway 93
and Ponderosa Lane or travel north along Sirucek Lane. Sirucek Lane intersects
Tronstad Road approximately 1/2 mile north of Ponderosa. Residents then must go either
west to Highway 93 or east to Whitefish Stage Road to travel south. Placing an
undefined 60-foot wide road and utility easement adjacent to the Ponderosa
homeowner's park will provide residents the option of constructing a roadway from
Ponderosa Lane, southwest through a portion of their park, and connecting with city
streets in Valley Ranch. With increased development and traffic on Highway 93, a safer,
less congested alternative to travel to areas south of Ponderosa may be necessary in the
future.
C. Visual enjoyment
The 80 acre project site is relatively flat with some moderate slopes in excess of 10% on
the east side of the site and a small hill on the west side adjacent to Highway 93. The
project proposes to maintain the visual enjoyment of the area by incorporating
landscaped buffers along Highway 93 and maintain existing vegetation along Highway
93 and the Ponderosa subdivision. The project accomplishes this by including the
following in the PUD plan:
® The open space areas on the west side include a 100 foot wide buffer strip, small
linear park and maintaining the west half of the small hill. A cross section of the
100 foot buffer adjacent to Highway 93 shows a landscaped earth berm with a
height between 8 and 10 feet. Behind this a linear park, approximately 130 feet
will also include landscaping in the form of trees and grass.
® Along a portion of the project's boundary with the Ponderosa subdivision the
developer has proposed a 100 foot wide buffer on the north end of lots 48-56.
This area includes several stands of pine trees that would act as a buffer between
the two developments.
The proposed PUD also includes elevations of future single family, townhouse and
apartment/condominium units that would be built on the site. These elevations include
gable roofs with split frame windows and a varying color pallet for the homes which help
to emphasize the windows, porches, fascia, columns and other architecturally distinct
features of the homes. The majority of the homes within the site will have access to an
alley or common parking lot. This in turn allows for a streetscape that emphasizes the
home and living space and places the driveways, garages and parking areas to the side
or rear of the living units.
D. Light and air
The proposed R-2 zoning as well as the proposed PUD amendments still require housing
setbacks and height limitations to provide for adequate light and air within the project
proposal. Design guidelines have been included to.provide housing standards to
maintain the visual quality of the entire project.
E. Recreation
The park areas and open space area will provide the recreational amenity within the
development. These facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association with the larger parks within the project being offered to the city to own and
maintain. As a recommended condition of approval a parks maintenance district would
be formed prior to final plat approval for the subsequent subdivision on the site. The
maintenance district would provide funding for the city parks and, if necessary, the
homeowners parks and open space areas as well.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
The project is proposed in a rural area of Flathead County with existing rural residential
development immediately north of the project site. There are also several businesses
located along Highway 93 immediately west and north of the site. Development of the
80.7 acre project site has the potential to impact existing residences of the Ponderosa
subdivision located north of the project site. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural
neighborhood platted in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa
subdivision vary between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. For decades residents in the Ponderosa
subdivision have lived in a relatively quiet rural setting but as the city grows northward it is
19
reasonable to expect city densities to accompany this northward expansion.
The developer has tried to offset some of the housing density impacts by incorporating larger
lots, varying between 13,000± square feet to 32,000± square feet, adjacent to the
Ponderosa subdivision and park and open space areas along the boundaries of the project.
The park and open space areas vary from a 20-foot wide open space corridor on the
north end of the Valley Ranch PUD site to a 100-foot wide linear park area between the
proposed lots and the existing lots within the Ponderosa subdivision. These park and
open space areas create a greater setback from future houses within Valley Ranch to
existing homes within Ponderosa and, within the linear park, maintain several stands of
ponderosa pines.
There is a National Guard Facility currently located southwest of the project site's southwest
boundary (the boundary corner closest to lot 14). The PUD plan shows the land uses closest
to the National Guard Facility as single family residences. A letter received from Debra
LaFountaine, Master Planner for the Department of Military Affairs, voiced concern over the
proposal to place residential uses in close proximity to the facility. The letter notes that on
weekends they have over 200 personnel conducting drills at the facility and they need to
keep the area well lit. The concern is how this noise and light would impact future residents
within the project. She is requesting this future problem be mitigated by possibly increasing
the proposed buffer along the south side of the project site.
The proposed PUD plan shows a future road extension to the southwest corner of the project
site and a 100-foot open space buffer between the single-family lots and the National Guard
Facility. At this time it is unclear whether the roadway and open space along the eastern
boundary would mitigate issues identified by Ms. LaFountaine. Staff recommends that prior
to submitting a preliminary plat for phase 2, the developer contact the Department of
Military Affairs and work with them to come up with a suitable mitigation plan. The National
Guard Facility is fairly new and can be expected to continue operating for the next 20 years
or more.
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;
The application indicates the site will be developed in 3 phases and a phasing timeline
was included with the application. The phasing plan has phase 1 developing within 2
years of approval of the PUD. Phases 2 and 3 will develop within the next 4 and 6 years
of approval respectively.
Phase 1 includes single-family residential lots 28-45, townhouse lots 1-8, the 4.9 acre
assisted and independent living facilities lot and the 8.7 acre apartment/condominium
lot. Phase 2 includes single-family residential lots to the north and south of phase 1.
Phase 3, located in the northwest portion of the project site, includes the remaining
single-family lots and townhouse lots. The developer is constrained with the timing of
the first phase of the project since he will not be able to obtain final plat approval for
phase 1 until Rose Crossing is constructed between Whitefish Stage Road and Highway
93. This construction needs to occur to allow the developer to construct an access road
south to Rose Crossing to provide the residents of Valley Ranch a safe full movement
intersection onto Highway 93.
20
Although planning staff acknowledges the development constraints on the property the
proposed PUD, if approved, should have a sunset date. Planning staff recommends that
the PUD be valid for a period of two years with the option for a one year extension.
Within this initial potential three year period, the developer will need to obtain
preliminary plat approval for the first phase. Subsequent phases will need to obtain
preliminary and final approval within two years of filing the final plat for phase 1.
However, the PUD will expire if, after preliminary plat approval is given for phase 1, the
final plat is not filed within the required timeframes (i.e. a maximum of 7 years from the
PUD approval date)
The purpose of placing these time frames on the PUD is to insure that there continues to
be a viable project on the site and prohibit developers from sitting on land for several
years to decades before starting their approved project. The time frame also provides the
adjacent public assurance of what is anticipated on the site.
Part of the requirements of the PUD is that the developer would enter into an agreement
with the City of Kalispell to adequately insure that the overall integrity of the
development, the installation of required infrastructure, architectural integrity and
proposed amenities, are accomplished as proposed. A recommended condition of
approval for the PUD would require this agreement be in place prior to filing the final
plat for the first phase of the project.
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 other than those addressed in the
beginning of this report.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
staff report KPUD-08-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the conditions listed below:
General Conditions:
1. The Planned Unit Development for Valley Ranch allows the following deviations
from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance:
A. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the
R-2 zoning district).
Allows the minimum lot area to be reduced from 9,600 square feet to 8,100
square feet for detached single-family lots.
B. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the
R-2 zoning district) .
Allows townhouse as a permitted use within the R-2 zoning district. The
townhouse units may also be used temporarily as a model unit for sales
21
purposes.
Note: The townhouse lots may be reduced in size but in no case shall the
lot size be below 2,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet for the parent lot.
C. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the
R-2 zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2
zoning district).
Allows assisted and independent living units and apartment/condominium
units in the R-2 zoning district. These units may also be used temporarily
as a model unit for sales purposes.
D. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (5) (Permitted lot coverage of
35%).
Allows lot coverage for the townhouse lots to increase to 45%.
E. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.24.090 (Permitted signs in Zones R-
1, R-2, R-3 and R-4).
Allows the following:
® One 24 square foot sign and one 10 square foot entry sign for the
apartment/condominium development.
® Two 10 square foot entry signs for the assisted/independent living
facility.
® Two marketing signs not to exceed 64 square feet.
Note: Only one marketing sign may be placed adjacent to Highway 93.
The signs shall be maintained and kept in good condition. The signs shall
be removed upon the sale of 80% of the dwelling units or if the PUD
expires.
2. A revised PUD master plan shall be provided with the preliminary plat submittal
of phase 1 which incorporates the Valley Ranch PUD conditions of approval.
Note: The implementation of the conditions may result in the loss of dwelling
units.
3. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
following plans, materials and other specifications as well as any additional
conditions associated with the PUD as approved by the city council:
® A maximum of 278 dwelling units and up to 104 assisted and independent
living units.
® Valley Ranch PUD master plan dated 5-20-08
® Phasing Plan
® Schematic Landscape Plan
® Elevations for single family lots
22
® Elevations for the townhouse lots
® Preliminary schematic site plan for the assisted and independent living facility
® Elevations and preliminary schematic site plan for the condo or apartment
units
® Landscape Buffer for Highway 93
® Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
® Design Standards
Note: The building height and lot coverage standards will be modified to
comply with the zoning ordinance's definition and calculation of these
standards. The reference for guest homes shall be removed.
® Typical road sections
Note: For the road section the sidewalks shall be located within one foot of the
right-of-way line to provide for a widened boulevard.
For the alley section that area between the edge of pavement and property line
shall be seeded.
4. A street and associated right-of-way meeting city standards shall be constructed
in the area of townhouse lot 22 from Plentywood Loop south to the project's
boundary with assessor's tract 3BA. This construction and right-of-way
dedication shall occur prior to final plat approval for phase 3.
5. The following parks shown on the PUD plan shall be dedicated to the City of
Kalispell upon final plat approval for each of the respective phases:
® Phase 1 -The 1.5 acre park next to the assisted living facility
Phase 2 - The 3.3 acre linear park along the south boundary of Ponderosa
Estates
® Phase 3 - The 8 acre park
6. The developer shall provide the Parks and Recreation Department with a revised
park improvement plan for each of the three city parks with the submittal of the
preliminary plat. Park improvements shall include the following:
A trail starting at the northwest corner of the PUD and connecting with a
highway side trail aligned through the 8 acre park, through the linear park
and connecting via the sidewalks along Sun Prairie Court with the 1.5 acre
park adjacent to the Assisted Living Complex. The trail must be paved to an 8
foot width on the interior of the site and 10 feet wide adjacent to the highway.
Provide easements for a trail adjacent to Highway 93 along the northwestern
portion of Valley Ranch.
23
® Provide landscaping and irrigation in the public park areas acceptable to the
Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department.
® Provide one tennis court, one 20 foot diameter shelter/pavilion, a hard -surface
multi -purpose court and a 5-12 year -old playground in the 8 acre public park.
® Provide a 12-14 foot diameter shelter and a 2-5 year -old tot lot in the 1.5 acre
park.
® Provide benches in each of the parks along the trail and benches along the
trail in the linear park.
The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department and implemented prior to final plat approval.
7. Detailed plans for parks, open space areas, and 100-foot highway setback buffer,
other than the three city parks cited in condition 5, shall be submitted with the
preliminary plat application of their respective phase. The Parks and Recreation
Department shall review and provide a recommendation of the plans for city
council approval.
8. A pedestrian/ bike path plan shall be submitted with the preliminary plat
application for phase 1 to the Parks and Recreation Department for its review.
The plan shall include the pathway width and construction materials for the
paths located throughout the Valley Ranch PUD. The city council shall approve
the plan with path construction coinciding with the various phases of
development.
9. Parks and open space development for phase 1 shall include the 1.5 acre city
park adjacent to the assisted living facility, the 0.8 acre homeowner's park north
of the 8.7 acre apartment/ condominium lot and the 100-foot wide buffer area
along Highway 93.
10. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the assisted and independent living
facility, the developer shall submit an amendment to the Valley Ranch PUD for a
public hearing showing the location, size, elevations, landscaping and parking
associated with the assisted and independent living facility. Note: The building
shall incorporate four sided architecture and an on -site public transit location.
Building plans shall incorporate the use of an automatic fire suppression system.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for each of the multi -family buildings, the
Kalispell Site Review Committee shall review each individual building plan with all
applicable city codes and policies and the following:
® Heavy duty loop bike racks capable of holding 5 bicycles located adjacent to
each building
® A landscaping and irrigation plan
® Sidewalk connectivity between the units, parking areas, bike paths if
applicable and sidewalks along the adjoining streets
® Multifamily buildings on the same lot shall have a minimum building
separation of 20 feet (eave to eave).
24
12. The clubhouse for the apartment/ condominium units shall be completed prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 4lst unit. The clubhouse shall be
approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in size and have bathrooms and
kitchenette facilities in addition to multipurpose rooms. The clubhouse may serve
as a sales office for the apartment/condominium units.
13. Prior to final plat approval for phase 1 the following road improvements shall be
installed:
® Whitehall Road, from the west end of the apartment/condominium lot, to
Highway 93 shall be improved to carry emergency vehicles. The emergency
access will need to meet fire code standards.
® Round -Up Road shall be built to the southern end of the project site boundary
to city standards.
® Whitehall Road shall be constructed to city standards to the eastern boundary
of the project site.
14. An undefined 60-foot wide public road and utility easement shall be provided
along the east side of Round -Up Road in the park area between lots 56 and 57.
The easement shall be noted on future subdivision plats.
15. A landscaping plan for any lift stations on the project site shall be provided with
the submittal of a preliminary plat. The landscaping plan shall incorporate a
combination of trees and shrubs with a density adequate to screen the lift station
from public view.
16. Future subdivisions on the project site shall not be given final plat approval until
a street connection is made to the south which provides a full movement
intersection in order for traffic to travel south on either Highway 93 or Whitefish
Stage Road.
17. Upon submitting a preliminary plat application for each phase the developer shall
provide the Public Works Department with a plan of how sewage will be conveyed
to the sewer treatment plant. The plan, once reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department, would be required to be installed prior to final plat approval.
18. The developer shall submit a an overall stormwater plan for the entire
development with the preliminary plat application of phase 1 and a concept
drainage report for each of the preliminary plat submittals. The concept drainage
report shall include but is not limited to the following:
® Narrative: The narrative shall describe all proposed methods and
alternatives for stormwater treatment and disposal, as well as provide
sufficient information, supporting technical data, assumptions, design
criteria, and drainage calculations. If phasing is anticipated, an explanation
of how the drainage system will be phased and constructed shall also be
included;
® Schematic: The schematic plan of the proposed stormwater system shall
show the approximate size and location of all drainage components;
25
® Geotechnical Information: If infiltration is proposed, then sufficient site
characterization work shall be completed to demonstrate that the
proposed facilities will function as intended.
® Pre -Development Basin Information: This information shall summarize the
pre -development drainage patterns for all basins contributing flow to, on,
through, and from the site. The narrative shall identify and discuss all
existing on -site and/or off -site drainage facilities, natural or constructed,
including but not limited to Natural Drainage Ways (described in the 2008
Kalispell Stormwater Facility Plan Update, if applicable), conveyance
systems, and any other special features (i.e. wetland, streams, rivers) on
or near the project; and,
® Down -Gradient Analysis: This analysis shall identify and discuss the
probable impacts down -gradient of the project site.
19. A park maintenance district shall be formed in accordance with section 7-12-
4001 MCA incorporating all the lots within the Valley Ranch project. The taxes
levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and
Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. Such a
district shall become effective upon recording the final plat for each phase.
20. The developer shall work with Eagle Transit to establish bus stop location(s)
within the Valley Ranch PUD. The approved bus stop location(s) shall be included
on a revised PUD plan and submitted with the preliminary plat of phase 1. Bus
stop location(s) shall be improved in accordance with Eagle Transit's
requirements, which may include a bus shelter, in the respective phase the bus
stop is located within.
21. Prior to submitting a preliminary plat for phase 2 the developer shall contact the
Department of Military Affairs and work with them to come up with a suitable plan to
buffer the anticipated residential land uses adjacent to the existing National Guard
facility.
22. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary public infrastructure shall be
completed prior to final plat submittal for each phase and that both the water and
sewer systems serving the phase are operational.
23. The power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within
the alley right-of-way. Where an alley is not adjacent to the lot the power, phone,
natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within a separate 10-foot
easement outside of the road right-of-way easement.
24. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full cutoff
lens so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties.
25. A development agreement shall be drafted by the Kalispell City Attorney between
the City of Kalispell and the developer outlining and formalizing the terms,
conditions and provisions of approval. The final plan as approved, together with
the conditions and restrictions imposed, shall constitute the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning for the site. The development agreement shall be
submitted with the final plat application of phase 1.
26
26. Approval of the planned unit development shall be valid for a period of two years
from the date of approval with the possibility of a one-year extension to be
granted by the city council. Within this time, the developers shall obtain approval
of a preliminary plat for the first phase of the project. When a preliminary plat is
submitted and approved for the site the developer will have up to three years to
complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent phases. The
Valley Ranch PUD shall expire if, after preliminary plat approval is given, the final
plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes
27
i
Kalispell, MT
I a TTP _ �. F •
Gateway Properties, Inc.
Brent Card
5229 Highway 93 S
Whitefish, MT 59937
3021 Palmer Street
s Box 16027
:1: ./
MARK DANIE:_-
EANC:AAE.
PE
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 9
TITMOTMOIT o
Gateway Properties, Inc. proposes to construct a mixed -use development, Valley
Ranch, on the east side of US Highway 93 (US 93) near the north end of Kalispell,
Montana (Figure 1). The proposed development will consist of single family homes,
townhomes, apartments, an assisted living center, and independent living units.
Completion of the development is anticipated for the year 2012.
The property on which the proposed subdivision will be built is approximately 80 acres
in size and is undeveloped. Surrounding properties in the vicinity of the site include a
mix of residential and commercial land uses.
This traffic study was prepared using standard traffic engineering techniques to
evaluate the operational characteristics of the proposed site driveways. A traffic
capacity and level -of -service analysis is presented herein.
Glacier Town Center, a large mixed -use commercial/residential development, was
recently approved for the property immediately south of the proposed Valley Ranch
development. When Glacier Town Center develops, Rose Crossing (a county road)
will be extended west from its current terminus at Whitefish Stage Road to a new
intersection with US 93. The future US 93/Rose Crossing intersection will be traffic
signal controlled. Direct vehicle access from Valley Ranch to US 93 is planned via two
%-movement driveways (Figure 2). Roadways within Valley Ranch will be extended
south through the Glacier Town Center development, connecting Valley Ranch with
Rose Crossing. This will result in signalized left -turn egress from Valley Ranch to
southbound US 93 via Rose Crossing. The extension of Rose Crossing from
Whitefish Stage Road to US 93 is anticipated for completion no later than 2009.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 2
�,
. �.❑.I i, each st
o
----- -Church
~ifs
'
'Dows La-Trail'
a
�
f
I
Site Area ' .! ..
a..—ftose '
{ ` i
1 �LR
a�i
rr.
C[oSEmg
�. _
- bse Cmssin
I
'!
-' —`- ' '--- IJ
L!
—4t.Reserle
Or __ .— Nt ft!serve Us
W Reserx ij —_
r`
Reserve Dr F Rewne L,
2 I
1�
j.f
(�
I �_ 'C.' k
VdagelGreens
.. . .
99A
JZ'M.
I i
a
i
tIJ( ,I L_T LU_N{j i 1!
'~,� +
l.J
��S rl
'I
, � tf
�� 7�
`R. IL
�'!! -•-.
..
I
Golflub �:
.0
L I
-�
�42.4� 51AieDr 3Cs ';- .• i L4�.
4' /
_
-2 IA{!a Cr `-� -- --*,—
T. _-n !( )?2�;.(
i r�[s n t yr r c-r' �..►r'� Cemad! Kd '
'
' L'c^isd
I,
n
II
- 2 K' �daM�'.�r ,�1 � ;,-i.r'`'; u'aamanld! (C i(I
1_� .•1
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Page 3
Figure 2: Site Plan
SUBDIVISION
79...S_j
NORDE�yOSA
� SUBptVIs1ON
3
a
T6
1
_ I
J
MO � � LOY aMw^
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 4
1
• •
To identify existing traffic volumes within the study area, AM and PM peak -period,
manual traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, September 20
and 21, 2006. The AM peak -period counts were conducted between 7:00 and 9:00
AM and the PM peak -period counts were conducted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. The
count data (in Appendix A) was then analyzed to determine the existing peak -hour
traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figure 3 shows the 2006 existing peak -hour
traffic volumes on US 93 derived from the traffic counts and used for this report.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 5
Figure 3: 2006 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volume
US Highway 93
0
00
CD
Tr
ti
CO
North
Legend
AM Peak Traffic (PM Peak Traffic)
® Site Driveway 1
® Site Driveway 2
Site
Driveway
3
1
1
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
Rose
Crossing
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
Rose
Crossing
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 6
The Glacier Town Center will be constructed on the property south of Valley Ranch.
This development has been approved by the City of Kalispell and is anticipated to
begin construction this year. Glacier Town Center is a very large, multi -phased project
including retail, residential, and office spaces. A traffic impact study (TIS) was
prepared for Glacier Town Center by Krager and Associates, Inc. (July 2007) in which
site -generated traffic was distributed for both Phase 1 and total development buildout
scenarios.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Glacier Town Center Phase 1
traffic generation and street improvements are in place prior to the analysis year. The
Phase 1 build traffic volumes developed in the Glacier Town Center TIS for the Rose
Crossing intersections were used as the no -build traffic volumes for this analysis. The
Glacier Town Center Phase 1 generated traffic was also added to US 93 at the Valley
Ranch proposed access locations.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 7
The 2006 existing traffic volumes on US 93 were projected to the study year 2012
using a four -percent -per -year peak -hour -traffic growth rate. This annual growth rate
was calculated based on data from the MDT publication, Traffic By Sections, for US
93 between Grandview Drive and Reserve Drive. (The subject site is actually located
in the next highway segment to the north, but that segment is almost ten miles long
and extends up to Whitefish. The selected segment is short and located just three-
quarter miles south of the site and therefore seems to better represent traffic growth at
the site.)
The Glacier Town Center Phase 1 traffic was combined with the projected 2012 traffic
volumes on US 93 north of Rose Crossing, resulting in the 2012 no -build traffic
volumes at Driveways 1 and 2 shown in Figure 4. The Phase 1 build traffic volumes
developed in the Glacier Town Center TIS at the Rose Crossing intersections with US
93 and Access F are assumed as the no -build condition for this analysis of Valley
Ranch, and are shown in Figure 4. These volumes represent the baseline traffic
condition projected to exist in 2012 without development of Valley Ranch.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 8
Figure 4: 2012 No -Build Traffic Volume
US Highway 93
CO
0
rn
0
CO
Site Driveway 1
_ N
CO
P
C O
cc
CO
® Site Driveway 2
N
�- Site
Driveway
3
1
� "'
30(116)
1
90(259)
71(102)
Lill. 17(50)
41
Rose
Crossing
1
63(110)
m o
52(148)
f0
ei O
CO e—
CO
N �—
O
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
North
Legend
AM Peak Traffic (PM Peak Traffic)
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 9
The proposed Valley Ranch subdivision will consist of approximately 85 single family
homes, 33 townhomes, 160 apartments, an 80-bed assisted living center, and a 24-
unit independent living facility. Information contained in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (7�' Edition) was used to estimate the
number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Table 1 shows
the results of the trip -generation calculations.
Land Use
Size
ITE Land
Use Code
Weekday
Average
Daily
Traffic
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Family Home
85 lots
210
895
17
52
59
34
.Single
Townhouse
33 units
230
250
4
17
16
8
Apartment
160
uniAssisted
220
1,075
16
66
69
37
Living Center
80 beds
254
213
7
4
8
10
Independent Living Facility
24 units
252
84
1
1
2
1
TOTAL
-
-
2,517
45
140
154
90
Existing traffic patterns at the intersection of US 93 and Ponderosa Lane were studied
to identify commuter travel patterns in this area. Based on the established patterns at
this intersection, it is estimated that approximately 20% of site -generated peak -hour
trips will be destined to/from US 93 north of the site, and approximately 80% will be
destined to/from areas south of the site. With the planned extension of Rose
Crossing, alternate routes between Valley Ranch and Kalispell will become available
including Whitefish Stage Road and US Highway 2. It is anticipated that 20% of site
traffic will use these routes to/from the south, with the remaining 60% of southbound
traffic using US 93. The arrival/departure distribution pattern developed for this
analysis is illustrated in Figure 5.
The site -generated trips from Table 1 were distributed to the roadway network in
accordance with the assumed trip distribution patterns. This resulted in the AM and
PM peak -hour, site -generated trips shown in Figure 6.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Page 10
Figure 5: Site Traffic Arrival/Departure Pattern
US Highway 93
20°i
4°i
60%
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
North
Legend
Arrival Pattern
Departure Pattern
Rose
Crossing
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 11
Figure 6: Valley Ranch Site -Generated Traffic
US Highway 93
�i
CO N
N 1�
22(14)
Tr
84(54)
FM
c00
N tf�
N
North
Legend
AM Peak Traffic (PM Peak Traffic)
— Site Driveway 1
® Site Driveway 2
Site
Driveway
3
1
1
m 1 9(31)
CO N
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
I
Rose
Crossing
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
page 12
i s -
The site -generated traffic was combined with the 2012 no -build traffic volumes
resulting in the projected 2012 build traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. These are the
traffic volumes projected to exist on the site driveways in 2012 when Valley Ranch is
complete and fully occupied.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 93
Figure 7: 2012 Build Traffic Volume
US Highway 93
O
T Ln
CO
22(14)
Site Driveway 1
�C
I'- CO
r �
O
CO
CD
r
Cfl
(0
00 N
6(4)
®
® Site Driveway 2
N �
CO LO
Site
Driveway
3
1
NCN
c M
cz
et 00
to
30(116)
_
9
CON
174(313)
71(102)
17(50)
41
5(18)
1 1
63(110)
o i
LD
52(148) m
O
N N
ter. r
CO e-
M
cc
Glacier
Town
Center
Access F
North
Legend
AM Peak Traffic (PM Peak Traffic)
Rose
Crossing
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study. Page 94
Capacity analysis of the study intersections was conducted using the projected 2012
no -build and build traffic volumes developed in this report. This analysis was
performed in accordance with the procedures presented in the Highway Capacity
Manual, 2000 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The
analyses worksheets are contained in Appendix B.
The analysis procedures result in traffic Level of Service (LOS) rankings from A to F,
with A representing essentially free -flow conditions and F representing undesirable
levels of driver delay. See Appendix C for a description of the various LOS
categories.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 15
This intersection does not currently exist. US 93 is a north/south arterial
highway that consists of two lanes in each direction plus a center two -way -left -
turn lane. Site Driveway 1 is anticipated as a three-quarter movement
intersection (left -turns exiting the driveway are prohibited, but all other
movements permitted) with stop -sign control on the driveway approach.
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2012 build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2.
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
2012
2012.
Build
Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Southbound
9.2
A
12.9
B
Left
Westbound
10.9
B
14.9
B
11 Right
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
This proposed intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during
all hours. No intersection improvements are required.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 96
This intersection does not currently exist. US 93 is a north/south arterial
highway that consists of two lanes in each direction plus a center two -way -left -
turn lane. Site Driveway 2 is anticipated as a three-quarter movement
intersection (left -turns exiting the driveway are prohibited, but all other
movements permitted) with stop -sign control on the driveway approach.
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2012 build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
2012
2012
Build
Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Southbound
9.2
A
12.9
B
Left
Westbound
10.8
B
15.0+
C
Left/Right
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
This proposed intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during
all hours. No intersection improvements are required.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 97
Intersection• " Rose Crossing and Site >triveway 3/Glacier •
wn
This intersection does not currently exist, but will be constructed soon as part of
the Glacier Town Center project. Glacier Town Center will construct Rose
Crossing with one through lane in each direction, plus a westbound left -turn
lane for traffic entering Access F. The Access F approach will consist of one
entering lane and two exiting lanes. It is suggested, if the necessary distance
between this intersection and the improvements planned at US 93 is available,
that a separate eastbound left -turn lane also be constructed at this intersection,
opposite the planned westbound lane, to accommodate traffic entering Site
Driveway 3. The developer of Valley Ranch should coordinate this effort with
Glacier Town Center. The southbound Driveway 3 approach will also ultimately
serve a substantial number of residential units within Glacier Town Center (to
be constructed in future phases of that development); therefore, consideration
should be given to providing two exiting lanes on the southbound approach to
Rose Crossing.
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2012 no -build
and build traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described
intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table
.
Table- Crossing and Site of
Peak AM Hour
Peak PM Hour
2012 No -build
2012 Build
2012 No -build
2012 Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Eastbound Left
i/a
n/a
7.4
A
da
nla
7.5
A
Westbound Left
7.5
A
7.5
A
7.9
A
7.9
A
Northbound Left
9.9
A
11.3
B
14.3
B
19.5
C
Northbound Th/Rt
8.8
A
8.8
A
9.6
A
9.6
A
Southbound Left
n/a
n/a
10.3
B
n/a
n/a
14.0
B
Southbound Th/Rt
n/a
n/a
9.0
A
n/a
n/a
9.2
A
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
This intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during all hours.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study . Page 18
711P.;1117
MMM
This intersection does not currently exist, but will be constructed soon as part of
the Glacier Town Center project. The westbound Rose Crossing approach will
be constructed with one left -turn lane and one right -turn lane. The northbound
approach will have two through lanes and a separate right -turn lane. The
southbound approach will have one left -turn lane and two through lanes. The
intersection will be controlled by a traffic signal operating with three vehicle
phases.
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2012 no -build
and build traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described
intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table
5.
Peak AM Hour
Peak PM Hour
2012 No -build
2012 Build
2012 No -build
2012 Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Westbound Left
34.4
C
36.8
D
34.3
C
37.0
D
Westbound Right
20.3
C
20.3
C
18.7
B
18.7
B
Northbound Through
18.6
B
18.8
B
31.5
c
34.1
C
Northbound Right
16.1
B
16.1
B
21.9
C
22.4
C
Southbound Left
48.0
D
48.0
D
55.5
E
55.5
E
Southbound Through
9.2
A
9.2
A
13.1
B
13.1
1 B
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
The traffic generated by the proposed Valley Ranch Subdivision will have no
appreciable effect on vehicle delay at this intersection. No intersection improvements
are required.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 19
Traffic crash data for US 93 was obtained from MDT for the five-year period between
January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. Crash data for one -quarter mile in both
directions from the proposed site were reviewed for this report. Five traffic incidents
occurred within this area during the identified five-year time period.
Of the five incidents, one resulted from loss of control in icy conditions, one involved a
collision with a wild animal, one resulted from an improper right -turn (apparently from
the wrong lane), one was a rear -end accident resulting from following too closely, and
one resulted in cargo from one vehicle causing damage to a second vehicle. None of
these accidents occurred as a result of correctable deficiencies in the highway.
The proposed driveway locations for the Valley Ranch subdivision are located at
points on US 93 with excellent intersection sight distance in both directions and a
center two-way left -turn lane, both of which should help to minimize the risk to traffic
crashes at these locations.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Page 20
I MI
The discussion and analyses contained in this report can be summarized as follows:
® Gateway Properties, Inc. proposes to construct a mixed -use residential
development on the east side of US 93 near the north end of Kalispell. The
proposed development will consist of single family homes, townhomes,
apartments, an assisted living center, and independent living units.
An adjacent development, Glacier Town Center, will be constructed on the
property immediately south of this site. As part of the construction of Glacier
Town Center, Rose Crossing will be extended west from its current terminus at
Whitefish Stage Road to a new signalized intersection with US 93. This
roadway construction will be complete no later than 2009.
Access to the proposed Valley Ranch development will include two driveways
onto US 93, as well as one driveway onto the new segment of Rose Crossing.
Left -turn egress from Driveways 1 and 2 onto US 93 is not recommended,
resulting in all southbound exiting traffic using Rose Crossing. The road
connection between Valley Ranch and Rose Crossing will be constructed as
part of the initial stage of Valley Ranch, even though the portion of Glacier
Town Center through which it will pass will not be developed until a later phase
of that project.
If space permits between Driveway 3 and the improvements planned at the
intersection of Rose Crossing and US 93, a left -turn lane on Rose Crossing for
eastbound turns into Driveway 3 should be considered. This should be
coordinated with the developer of Glacier Town Center and their roadway
design engineer.
® All of the proposed driveway intersections are projected to operate at very good
LOS under the forecasted 2012 build traffic volumes.
The Valley Ranch, site -gel ier ated traffic will have no appreciable effect on
vehicle delay at the intersection of Rose Crossing and US 93, contributing less
than three seconds of delay on each movement.
® No identifiable traffic crash patterns on US 93 are noted in the vicinity of the
proposed site driveways. Sight distance is very good in both directions at the
proposed US 93 site driveways.
® The Valley Ranch development will have no negative affect on traffic at the
study intersections. No intersection mitigation is required with the possible
exception of a left -turn lane eastbound on Rose Crossing at Driveway 3.
:V-� •' 1 1
!i
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and
CALL
Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board
members present were: Bryan Schutt, Rick Hull, C.M.
(Butch) Clark, John Hinchey, Jim Williamson, Richard
Griffin. and Troy Mendius. Tom Jentz and Sean Conrad
represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were
approximately 20 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the July 8, 2008 Kalispell City Planning Board
meeting.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No one wished to speak.
VALLEY RANCH PLANNED
A request by Gateway Properties, Inc. (Valley Ranch) for a
IT DEVELOPMENT
planned unit development (PUD) overlay zoning district on
approximately 80 acres of land currently zoned City R-2
(Single Family Residential) within the City of Kalispell. A total
of 382 units are proposed on the site which includes 85
single-family residential lots, 33 townhouse lots, 104
assisted/independent (elderly) living units, and 160
apartment/condominium units. The property is located on
the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of
the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive, and
south of a County subdivision, Ponderosa Estates.
STAFF REPORT -08-
Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell City Planning
01
Department reviewed staff report KPUD-08-01 for the board.
Conrad said the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development
Zoning Overlay is before the board tonight. Conrad provided
the location of the site for the board and reviewed the uses
within the project including parks, open space, road
connections, and the residential aspect that would include
single family, townhouse, assisted/independent living and
apartment/condominium units. The first phase, Conrad
noted, has the highest density because it includes the
assisted/independent living, apartment/condominium units,
along with some single family and townhouse lots.
City staff had some comments regarding the access for the
townhouses in phase 3. Instead of access off an alley staff is
recommending a road be extended, and the townhouse units
be reconfigured to front off the road. This would provide
access to these lots which would meet subdivision regulations
standards, and the street would also accommodate a future
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 1 of 8
road to properties to the south of this project. The tracts to
the south are developed but development is primarily on the
western edge along Highway 93 and the intent here is to get a
parallel road to Highway 93 which would allow further
development of these lots if and when they want to come into
the city.
Conrad reviewed the landscape buffer that will be provided
along Highway 93 which he noted is extensive and will include
100 feet of landscaped berming and trees. They are also
proposing a 130 foot wide linear park before they start the
housing units.
Hinchey asked if there was a height requirement for the buffer
and Conrad said not at this time but staff is asking for more
detailed plans when they come in with the preliminary plat for
phase 1. Conrad noted the Parks 8s Recreation Department
will also review those plans.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-08-01 as
findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the Valley Ranch PUD be approved subject to the 26
conditions listed in the staff report.
Conrad emphasized the preliminary plats will come before the
board for review before any lots are created and any houses
built. In addition as part of the final plat approval they would
not be granted approval until there is a road connection south
to Rose Crossing which will be in conjunction with the
construction of phase 1 of Glacier Town Center. That will
provide the residents of Valley Ranch a full -turn, signalized
intersection to safely access Highway 93.
BOARDTIO S Griffin noted there are differences in the number of dwelling
units throughout the application and report. Jentz noted the
382 figure is correct.
Griffin raised his concern with the issue of sewer where the
city indicates they are not currently in the position to build
the needed off -site improvements to accommodate this and
other larger scale developments in the area, therefore the
developer is in the best position for making the improvements.
Griffin asked for clarification as this would require the
developer to pay for the improvements to the city's facilities.
Conrad said currently our Public Works Department indicated
the infrastructure going along Highway 93 south has the
capacity to serve the Silverbrook subdivision, the first phase of
Glacier Town Center and other projects along this route that
have already received preliminary plat approval. However,
they have found with the preliminary plat approvals the
station and lines are at capacity. The station would need to
be upgraded and new lines would need to be run and the cost
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 2 of 8
would be the responsibility of this and any other developer
that may develop in this area.
Griffin thought this would negatively impact the cost per lot in
Valley Ranch. Conrad said someone has to bear the cost and
right now the city doesn't have the funding to construct the
improvements. Jentz said this developer may put up the
initial cost but it will not necessarily affect the values of the
lots. Jentz continued the developer would enter into a late-
comers' agreement with the city and the impact and hook-up
fees that would be paid with each individual housing unit
building permit would be used to reimburse the developers for
the upgrades. Jentz further explained how the late -comers'
fee works. Griffin asked about the current capacity of the
sewage treatment plant and Jentz noted the sewage plant is
currently undergoing an expansion that would double its
capacity in the next 12 months.
Williamson asked if this developer may also have to pay
Silverbrook for their late -comers' fee and Jentz said yes.
Williamson asked the status of impact fees and Jentz reviewed
the current impact fee program that includes police, fire,
stormwater, sewer and water. Jentz noted that transportation
(roads) and parks impact fees are currently being considered
by council.
Griffin asked if the 7 year approval window was a reasonable
length of time given the current market. Conrad said the
timeline gives the public assurance that the project approved
will be completed or if the developer lets the PUD lapse the
public will know with another developer the public process
will begin again. Conrad noted the current developer could
also request an extension from city council.
Hinchey asked if the proposed road extension would end in a
cul-de-sac and Conrad said not necessarily since there is an
alley at that location but under other circumstances the fire
department could require some sort of temporary turnaround
area instead.
Griffin noted there was a letter from Kalispell Public Schools
indicating that they have some concerns regarding this project
and asked when those concerns would be addressed. Conrad
said any impacts would be discussed at the preliminary plat
stage. Clark noted for the record that in the past the school
district has either not commented at all or their comments
were very vague. Clark suggested the school district should be
negotiating with the developers for school sites, etc. in the
future. Jentz reminded the board that impacts to the schools
cannot be used to recommend denial of a project. Jentz
explained further.
APPLICANT/ CONSULTANTS I Bruce Lutz, Sitescape Associates said he represents Brent
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 3 of 8
Card and Gateway Properties. He has been working with staff
on the conditions and they concur with those conditions.
However, they do have concerns with the sewer situation and
will be following that very closely through this process. Being
neighbors to the Glacier Town Center they are hopeful that
some of the other developers will share in that load.
Lutz said he wanted to address a few points discussed at the
work session last month including the issue of Round Up
Road extending down to the south end of the property and, he
added, they concur with that condition. The other issue was
connectivity to Ponderosa Estates and there are some severe
grade constraints in the area that was recommended. Lutz
suggested the area between lots 55 and 57 be considered
instead.
Lutz continued part of the conditions for phase 1 would be
connecting Whitehall Road all the way from the condo area
out to Highway 93 and connecting to the east side of the
property in phase 1. He added they had a meeting with the
Parks Department to determine what would be considered a
public park v. a homeowner park. He said also in phase 1, the
Parks Department is asldng for the construction of the buffer
along Highway 93 as part of phase 1, even though it is a part
of another phase. Lutz reviewed the trail connections within
the Valley Ranch development.
Hinchey was concerned that the first phase of this project is
all of the high density and yet there would be very few park
areas developed with phase 1. Lutz said along with the
potential sewer issue one of the large expenses of this project
will be connecting to Rose Crossing and he said phase 1 will
not proceed until they can achieve that. Lutz said they wanted
to internalize the assisted living project to make it more
integrated into the project and closer to the town center and
wanted to buffer the Ponderosa perimeter with larger lots so
they have shifted their density. The 1-1/2 acre park will be
built as a public park in the first phase and will have a gazebo
shelter structure, benches and some kind of a trail connection
to the assisted living facility.
Clark asked for a review of the roads that will be constructed
with phase 1 and Lutz provided the information and the
relationship with the roads to be constructed in Glacier Town
Center. Clark asked if Lutz felt 7 years was enough time to
develop Valley Ranch and Lutz said he hoped it would be
enough and added they have the potential to extend the
timeframe another 3 years. Clark thought under the current
conditions 7 years wasn't enough time.
Hinchey said he doesn't see any connections to Highway 93
with the exception of the road south to Rose Crossing and
Lutz said with phase 1 there is another secondary connection
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 4 of 8
to the west. Clark asked if that would be right-in/right-out
only and Lutz said it would be a 3/4 movement.
PUBLIC HEARING Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive — Ponderosa Estates
distributed information regarding cottage housing in Seattle
for the board's information. DeMeester said during the work
session there was discussion about connectivity through the
Ponderosa park and she wanted them to know that area
proposed for the connection is not a park it is an 8-hole
putting green. DeMeester said there is also major opposition
to providing a connection between Valley Ranch and
Ponderosa Estates because their roads are all private and they
do not want the additional traffic from Valley Ranch. In
addition a major issue is the right-in/right-out on the north
side of this property. She trunks the traffic will turn right onto
Highway 93 then right into Ponderosa and then make a u-
turn and go back out onto the highway. She described the
safety problems that currently exist at this intersection.
DeMeester said her other concern is the apartment complex
and density. She understands that developers need density to
compensate for the cost of development and she suggested
they consider the cottage -style developments which are very
successful in the Seattle area. She further described this type
of development for the board.
Bonnie Raeth, 261 White Pine Road stated she was one of the
first residents of Ponderosa Estates and has been living there
for over 25 years. Her concerns are the same as were stated
by Mrs. DeMeester. She added the developers have really tried
hard to work with the residents of Ponderosa but she said the
plans for a connection between the 2 subdivisions at the park
location will not work because it is a putting green not a park.
She asked the board to consider the sewer issue and the
impacts on schools.
MOTION Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff
report KPUD-08-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell Ci y Council that the Valley Ranch PUD be approved
subject to the 26 conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said the developer has addressed all of his concerns.
They have put the large lots next to Ponderosa, the buffer
was added in the area where he was worried the trees would
be removed, and they have done everything possible to get
along with their neighbors and address the board's concerns.
Conrad noted that an email was received from Todd Thiesen
and copies were distributed to the board before the meeting.
Mr. Thiesen didn't have any major opposition to the project
but he did suggest that the developer provide a
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 5 of 8
transportation right-of-way that would connect with the
Ponderosa Estates subdivision. Mr. Thiesen also expressed
his concerns regarding dust abatement control and Conrad
noted the city's Public Works Department is being more pro-
active in requesting that developers provide a plan for dust
abatement and Public Works restricts the amount of
property that can be disturbed to limit the impacts of dust
on nearby properties.
Schutt asked if the connectivity would serve this
development of Ponderosa Estates and Conrad said it would
be an alternative ingress/egress for the residents of
Ponderosa to travel south to the signalized intersection of
Rose Crossing and Highway 93 and to the Glacier Town
Center. If and when the residents of Ponderosa feel that they
need an alternative route they would have to construct the
road. Schutt asked if there were any long term plans for the
intersection of the Big Mountain Golf Club and Ponderosa
and Conrad said none that he is aware of now but MDOT
may choose to change the intersection in the future.
Hinchey said he echoes what was said by Clark in that the
developer has answered most of the concerns of the
neighbors and the board. However, Hinchey continued he
still has some concerns. He said regarding the density of the
first phase, it contains 80% of the units for the project but is
only planning for 20% of the parks. He doesn't think the city
will be getting the infrastructure that it needs to support this
phase. Hinchey would like to see more parks and bike paths
developed.
Hinchey added he also shares the concerns expressed
regarding the 160 apartment units and asked for some idea
of what their design will be. He is also concerned that
residents of Valley Ranch will use the right -out up to
Ponderosa and make a u-turn.
Hinchey noted Condition #21 refers to the Department of
Military Affairs and that the developer would work with them
to come up with a suitable plan to buffer the uses between
the DMA facility and the residential lots. Hinchey thought
that sounded subjective and he would rather see that
wording changed so the noise can be mitigated.
Conrad responded the Parks Department is recommending
that in addition to the 1-1/2 acre park the .8 of an acre park
on the north end also will be developed along with the open
space. Another thing to bear in mind, Conrad continued, is
that they will not get preliminary plat approval until phase 1
of the Glacier Town Center is approved which will include the
construction of Rose Crossing. Conrad explained further and
added along with the construction of phase 1 of Glacier Town
Center is a 17 - 18 acre park which will also be developed
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 6 of 8
and that park would be available to the residents of Valley
Ranch.
Conrad continued whether the residents will turn right out of
Valley Ranch and go up and turn around at the Ponderosa
intersection is an issue for MDOT. Other access points will
be provided to the south that will be much safer than using
the route to the north.
Conrad referred Hinchey to the elevation drawings for the
apartments that were provided in the packets and noted
their designs should be similar. Conrad also added the
designs will be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Committee.
Conrad said Condition #21 regarding the plan to mitigate
noise from the Department of Military Affairs facility could be
amended by the board. Hinchey asked, how does the board
guarantee that the residents of Valley Ranch adjacent to the
DMA facility will know there will be noise generated on
Saturdays when they are purchasing their lots? Hinchey
proposed an amendment to condition #21 with the wording
suggested by staff. Williamson noted in reference to
Condition #21 all the developer has to do is contact DMA. It
is an existing structure and everyone hopefully will know it is
there. The motion was not seconded and no further
discussion was held.
Hinchey thanked Conrad for the clarifications but expressed
his continued concern about the density of phase 1.
Schutt said he believes this project is much improved since it
was first presented. He is not personally concerned about the
7 year time limit because markets change and he believes
there will be adequate time. The city council has granted
extensions in the past and this project would be not
different.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6 in favor and 1
opposed.
OLD BUSINESS:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
Coming in September there will be the regular meeting on
September 9th and a Work Session on September 23rd. In
addition, in October the planning board meeting will be
broadcasted live on the internet and there will be a dry run
in September.
ADJOURNbMNT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.
WORK SESSION:
Immediately following the regular meeting a work session
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 7of8
was held on the following items:
1. Siderius Commons/Highway 93 South Growth Policy
Amendment
Due to the late hour the following work session items were
not discussed:
Entrance Corridor Standards Text Amendment
Kalispell West Growth Policy Amendment
NEXT MEETING The next regular sheeting of the Kalispell City Planning
Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for September 9,
2008, at the regular time of 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City
Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East. A
work session is scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2008
in the city council chambers. The work session agenda will
include the Entrance Corridor Standards and the Kalispell
West Growth Policy Amendment.
Bryan H. Schutt
President
Michelle Anderson
Recording Secretary
APPROVED as submitted/corrected: / /08
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 8 of 8
From: Todd Thiesen [mailto:tthiesen@bresnan.net]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:32 PM
To: planning@kalispell.com
Subject: Valley Ranch Subdivision
Todd Thiesen
143 Ponderosa Ln
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: 406-314-4524
E-mail: tthiesen a)bresnan.net
August 11, 2008
Kalispell Planning Department
201 16t Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
E-Mail: Plannin kalispell.com
Subject: Written Comments Regarding The Valley Ranch Subdivision
Dear Planning Staff,
I have been a resident of Ponderosa Estates for 18 months. I have several comments regarding
the proposed Valley Ranch Subdivision.
1. I am not opposed to any of the major elements of the development as proposed.
2. 1 suggest requiring the subdivision developers to leave a transportation right of way that
would connect Ponderosa Estates to the Subdivision. Ponderosa Estates' primary access
is via hwy 93 and a poor secondary access through a private road to Tronstadt Rd. The
following sketch is a suggested connection. The route is shown in red. An appropriate
amount of green space should be allocated by the subdivision to compensate for the
reduction in Ponderosa green space. I suppose the planning board can not force
Ponderosa Estates to connect to the proposed right of way at this time. However, when
the time comes for Ponderosa Estates to be annexed, completion of the tie-in would be
made a condition of the annexation.
Cottage
Development
• r O
1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2400
Seattle, Washington 98101-2603
425-453-5123
425-462-0776 fax
mluis@seanet.com
The Housing Partnership is a non-profit organization (officially known as the King County Housing Alliance)
dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable housing in King County. This is achieved, in part, through policies of
local government that foster increased housing development while preserving affordability and neighborhood
character. The Partnership pursues these goals by: (a) building public awareness of housing affordability issues; (b)
promoting design and regulatory solutions; and (c) acting as a convener of public, private and community leaders
concerned about housing. The Partnership's officers for 2000 are: Rich Bennion, HomeStreet Bank, Chair; Paige
Miller, Port of Seattle, Vice Chair; Gary Ackerman, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Secretary; Tom Witte, Bank of
America, Chair, Finance Committee; J. Tayloe Washburn, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Chair, Land Use Committee.
Although a significant number of Americans live in multi -family housing,
research shows that single family housing is the overwhelming preference in
this country. Surveys by Fannie Mae indicate that upwards of 85 percent of
Americans would prefer to live in a detached house, and that they will make
major sacrifices to do so.
Why is it that while our cultural cousins in Europe happily live in large
urban flats and townhouses, Americans feel deprived if they do not have
their own castle? While this question begins to get into scary psychological
and sociological territory, dealing with frontier traditions and questions of
personal space, we do know a few things. For instance, Housing Partnership
research in 1998 showed that King County residents place a very high value
on safety, quiet and privacy, three important features of single family,
detached housing in low density neighborhoods.
In the end, however, a preference expressed by 85 percent of people does
not need to be defended. It demands to be accommodated. In King County
we are doing a nice job of accommodating the housing needs of upper -
income families with children. We are, however, falling short of meeting
the needs of families that cannot afford to pay $300,000 for a house near
their job, or who want a detached house but do not need 2500 square feet of
space and a large yard.
Part of the challenge
g
Part of the challenge of meeting the housing needs of our growing and
thriving region is to offer housing types that address the values that drive
of meeting the
demand for detached, single family housing, but with smaller spaces and
housing needs of our
smaller price tags.
growing and thriving
Enter the cottage!
region is to offer
Cottage housing provides an option that preserves the privacy and personal
housing types that
space of a detached house in a smaller and less costly unit. Cottages are
address the values
usually built in clusters and can introduce a sense of community. In the
that drive demand for
marketplace they offer an alternative to the two choices most often
available: single family houses and condominiums. For those looking for a
detached. single
detached house, cottages provide a way to trade quantity of space for quality
family housing, but
of space.
with smaller spaces
`While quite a number of successful cottage developments, both old and new,
and smaller price
can be found in the Puget Sound area, this is still not a common style of
housing development. But as communities try to find ways to meet their
tags
housing needs in the more dense patterns called for in the Growth
Management Act, cottage housing offers an option that should be added to
the mix.
This short report is intended to be a primer on cottage development and to
point the way for cities to develop approaches to cottage zoning that will
interest developers and buyers in this attractive form of housing. A follow-
up report will provide a case study of the Ravenna cottage project being
undertaken by Threshold Housing.
There is no precise definition of cottage housing, and it is not clear when a
house ceases to be a cottage and becomes a small -lot house, or simply a
house. For purposes of this discussion, however, we will assume that
Cottages usual/
g y
cottages are built in clusters, close together, have some common area, and
do not have parking adjacent to each cottage. Cottages usually provide
provide some means
some means for neighbors to inevitably run into each other. One person
for neighbors to
9'
described the Third Street Cottages in Langley as "co -housing without all
the meetings."
inevitably run into each
other. One person
The following discussion of design features should help round out a picture
described the Third
o
f cottage housing.
Street Cottages in
Cottage Design Features
Langley as "co-
housin without all the
g
Size. Among cottages in the area, the small end of the size range would be
found in the Pine Street Cottages in Seattle, which have about 450 square
meetings. "
feet on the main floor, plus a 100 square foot loft. This space allows for
living room, bedroom, kitchen and full bath. At the larger end of the size
spectrum, the Ravenna cottages in Seattle will offer about 950 square feet of
space in two stories. This allows for two bedrooms and one and a half
baths. The Third Street Cottages in Langley, Washington, range from 600
Single family
to 650 square feet on the main floor, plus lofts ranging from 100 to 280
neighborhoods will be
square feet.
the optimum location
The cottage zoning ordinance in Seattle limits cottages to 975 square feet,
for cottage clusters,
g
with no more than one third of that space in either a basement or upper
level. Although definitions are squishy, cottage proponents would generally
both because of the
put the upper size limit around 1000 square feet.
economics Of land cost
Location. Both existing and new cottage clusters are located within single
and to achieve the � -...
family areas. The older clusters, built in the early part of the century,
promise of a single-
predate the current zoning and have been grandfathered. The Third Street
family feel at multi-
cottages in Langley were built under a special cottage zoning ordinance, and
the Ravenna cottages in Seattle are being built under a special design
family prices.
demonstration project ordinance.
Single family neighborhoods will be the optimum location for cottage
clusters, both because of the economics of land cost and to achieve the
promise of a single-family feel at multi -family prices. One- or two-story
cottages would not fit well into a multi -family zone where taller, bulkier
structures would overwhelm them. The existing Seattle cottage zoning
ordinance, which limits cottage clusters to lowrise multi -family zones, has
not resulted in any new cottage projects.
Clustering. Cottages tend to be clustered together around some common
open space, such as a courtyard or walkway. If the land is in condominium
ownership (the easiest, but maybe not the most popular method) agreements
will specify the areas that are subject to common maintenance and those that
are the owners' responsibility.
Cottage Housing Development Page 2
Some utility features may also be clustered or in common. For instance, the
Pine Street Cottages have a shared, off-street parking area. The Third Street
To maximize the
Cottages have a shared workshop building and a separate building with
storage lockers. The Ravenna cottages have storage areas under one
chances of a good
cottage, taking advantage of a drop in grade.
social atmosphere in
A less tangible part of the clustering concept is the relationships that
a cottage cluster, it is
develop among the occupants. In clusters where the front doors face each
generally believed
other (Bungalow Court, Greenbush Court, Third Street, Ravenna) neighbors
are bound to run into each other. The Pine Street Cottages have a
that there should be
landscaped courtyard that acts as everyone's back yard. To foster a sense of
at least four cottages
community beyond that which might emerge naturally from common spaces
or owners associations, the developer may raise an implicit or explicit
in a cluster, and no
expectation to buyers that the cottage cluster is no place for hermits.
more than twelve
. . .
To maximize the chances of a good social atmosphere in a cottage cluster, it
clusters should not be
is generally believed that there should be at least four cottages in a cluster,
built too close
and no more than twelve. Furthermore, to preserve both the original feel of
together in the same
the neighborhood as well as the special atmosphere of cottages, clusters
should not be built too close together in the same area.
area
Land Use. The efficiency of land use is gained by clustering the cottages
relatively closely together. The Pine Street cottages feature 10 units on
about a third of an acre, clustered around a common courtyard. The
Ravenna project clusters six cottages plus a garage with three carriage units
on about a quarter acre. The Third Street Cottages in Langley provide a
little more space, placing eight cottages and two common utility buildings
on two-thirds of an acre. These densities range from 12 units/acre to 36
units/acre. The Seattle ordinance requires a minimum of 1,600 square feet
per cottage (i.e. no more than 26 units per acre), and 6,400 square feet for
The surest way to
the whole cluster (suggesting a minimum of four cottages).
destroy public
Softening impacts. In spite of higher densities, experience has shown that
support for cottage
cottage clusters can fit very nicely with their surroundings. Older clusters,
development would
p
like Pine Street on Capitol Hill or the Bungalow Court on First Hill, mirror
homes.
the craftsman architecture of the surrounding Newer clusters also
be to build cheap
employ more traditional architectural styles. In all cases, careful attention to
little boxes that add
design detail and landscaping softens the impact of higher densities.
density while
Going one step further, a design goal should be that the cottage cluster
degrading the
actually improve the surrounding neighborhood, rather than having just a
aesthetics of the
neutral impact. Off-street parking, landscaping, interesting facades and
other design features can result in a better streetscape than single-family
neighborhood. .. .
houses might yield. A cottage cluster can present less mass than single
such development
family houses that maximize the building envelope. The pedestrian
orientation of cottages puts more people on the sidewalk, enhancing
will inevitably erode
neighborhood security.
support for the
The surest way to destroy public support for cottage development would be
higher densities
to build cheap little boxes that add density while degrading the aesthetics of
necessary for long-
the neighborhood. While very inexpensive cottages may provide
affordability in the short run, such development will inevitably erode
term affordability.
support for the higher densities necessary for long-term affordability.
Cottage Housing Development Page 3
Will M_17W_7711T_Mvajgj���
Although some question the market attractiveness of cottages and very small
houses, those that have been on the market in the Puget Sound region have
tended to sell very well and to hold their value. So although experience is
The predominant
limited, there is clearly a market for cottages. Following are some key
buyers of cottages in
market considerations.
recent years have
Singles. The predominant buyers of cottages in recent years have been
been single people. . .
single people. These individuals have the option of buying a condominium
The buyer
or an older house, but opt for cottages because they offer the privacy of a
profile
single family house with the low maintenance requirements of new
developed for the
construction or a condominium. The buyer profile developed for the
Ravenna cottages
Ravenna cottages indicates that the majority of buyers will be women.
indicates that the
Couples and single parents. Cottages can work well for couples or single
majority of buyers will
parents. To work for small children care would need to be taken to enclose
open space.
be women.
Seniors. Cottages can work well for seniors, especially those wanting to
stay in a detached house in their neighborhood, but unwilling or unable to
care for their current house. The loft approach will present problems for
residents less able to negotiate steep stairs.
Space -quality trade-off. Implicit in the cottage concept is the trade-off
between space and the quality of construction. Some of the savings from
Implicit /n the cottage land cost and building size can be put into better finishes, interesting design
concept is the trade- elements, appliance and fixture upgrades and landscaping. This is
especially important for that segment of the market that could afford a full -
off between space sized house, but chooses a smaller space.
and the quality of
construction... This
is especially Development
important for that
segment of the Cottages, like any other form of housing, can come to market in a wide
market that could range of prices, depending on what the potential buyers in that area might be
afford a full-sized willing to pay.
house, but chooses At the low end, for example, a cluster of eight cottages on a third of an acre
in an outlying area with modest amenities could come in at around $130,000
a smaller space. per cottage. At the higher end, a cluster of six cottages on a half acre, in a
desirable close in neighborhood, with high grade finishes and amenities,
might come in at $300,000.
The developer, in deciding what price range to aim for, looks at the
alternatives available to the prospective buyer. As noted above, cottages
occupy a place in the market between small, older houses and
condominiums. So, for a $130,000 cottage to compete with an older
rambler at $160,000 it needs to emphasize the low maintenance advantages
of new construction. At the other end, the cottage in a desirable area can
Cottage Housing Development Page 4
easily compete with condominiums that easily top $300,000 by offering that
crucial space between neighbors.
The big economic
From a policy perspective, then, cottages can be part of an affordability
edge for cottages is
strategy. A $200,000 cottage in North Seattle may be beyond the range of
low land cost
middle wage earners, but is still less expensive than most existing houses
per
and certainly less than other new construction houses in the area.
unit, and this cannot
Furthermore, cottages can take pressure off the single family market by
be achieved on most
providing an alternative to those who like the privacy of single family
houses but need less space.
multi -family zoned
land which is much
All of these assumptions about unit pricing are based on land prices that
predominate in single family zones. The big economic edge for cottages is
more expensive
low land cost per unit, and this cannot be achieved on most multi -family
zoned land which is much more expensive. In a cottage project built in a
single family zone, land cost will be 15 to 20 percent of total sales, in
contrast to the 25 to 30 percent of sales that is customary in single family
development.
To ensure that cottage projects fit well into existing single family
neighborhoods, careful thought needs to be given to specific development
standards. These standards must achieve a balance so that they protect
[Development]
neighborhood character and at the same time provide incentives for cottage
standards must
development.
achieve a balance
Three cottage zoning ordinances exist in the region. The Seattle ordinance
so that they protect
was adopted in 1994, but restricted cottages to the lowest density multi-
neighborhood
family zones. The city of Langley, on Whidbey Island, adopted a cottage
ordinance using the Seattle model, but allowing cottages in single family
character and at the
zones. The City of Shoreline adopted a cottage zoning ordinance modeled
same time provide
after Langley. The issues that follow will reference the Seattle ordinance,
but that should not suggest that it's standards are the only approach.
incentives for
cottage G'
Lot coverage. The Seattle ordinance limits overall lot coverage for a
cottage cluster to 35 percent (for lowrise duplexitriplex zones) or 40 percent
development.
(lowrise 1 zones). In addition, individual cottages are not to exceed 650
square feet of lot coverage.
Setbacks. The Seattle ordinance requires a 10 foot setback in the front and
rear yards, and allows the centerline of an alley to count as the reference
point for the rear yard. The Seattle ordinance requires a five foot side yard
setback. The space between cottages must be at least six feet. The side with
the main entrance door must be 10 feet from the next cottage.
Height and Bulk. In Seattle, concern was raised about the prospect of
"skinny houses," that might overwhelm their neighbors. To guard against
this prospect, first, a requirement was written that restricts a second floor to
no more than half the square footage of the first floor. Second, height
restrictions were written that effectively limit cottages to one and a half
stories (i.e., parts of the second story do not have a full eight -foot height).
Cottage Housing Development Page 5
Open Space. The Seattle ordinance requires at Ieast 400 square feet of
usable open space in duplex/triplex zones, and 300 square feet in lowrise i
zones. In both cases, this space is evenly divided between private space
adjacent to the unit, and space available to everyone in the cluster. In all of
these spaces, the horizontal dimensions must be at least 10 feet, but this
requirement is not met in existing or planned cottage developments.
Parking. As with so many development issues, parking is central to the
acceptability of cottages. The Seattle ordinance requires one parking space
per cottage, and does not allow those spaces to be built between cottages.
Although the Pine Street Cottages predate this requirement, they do provide
one off street space per cottage in a secured lot behind the courtyard. The
Ravenna Cottage project includes a nine -car garage structure with three
carriage units on top (i.e. one space per cottage and per carriage unit).
Neither the existing Bungalow Court nor the Greenbush Court in Seattle
provide off-street parking. The Third Street Cottages in Langley provide
one space per unit with a couple of guest spaces available.
Dispersion. To help allay fears about a rapid increase in densities in
Seattle, and to protect the uniqueness of the cottage concept, the original
cottage zoning proposal contained a dispersion requirement. (At this point
in the legislative process the ordinance had still allowed cottage clusters in
single family zones.) Under the dispersion requirement, no cottage cluster
could be built within one block of another.
Conciusion
Nearly all housing
beenbuilt Coda
g y
If we are to achieve our goals of more compact urban development, we need
to expand the range of housing types available to consumers. Nearly all
Consists of either
housing being built today consists of either single family houses on full lots,
single family houses
or multi -family units in large buildings. Cottage housing offers a middle
ground that will be attractive to some segments of the market.
on full lots, or multi-
family units in large
Design and economic considerations suggest that cottages will work best if
allowed in single family zones. Experience shows that cottages can fit
buildings. Cottage
nicely into existing neighborhoods, but experience also shows that density
housing offers a
increases are always a tough sell. As with so many questions of density, the
middle ground that
policy challenge is to find ways to ensure that cottage development in single
family areas follows good design principles. Cottage housing is a wonderful
Will be attractive to
idea that could be killed off with just a few bad experiences.
some segments of
If we begin now, builders, consumers, local governments and neighbors will
the market,
soon figure out how to add cottages to the box of tools we need to achieve
our growth visions.
Cottage Housing Development Page 6
Short picket fences
bordering the curved
pathway through Port
Townsend's Umatilla Hill
pocket neighborhood
distinguish shared space
from private yards.
A variety of ages and
family types, from
singles to empty nesters,
enjoy the compact, open
style encouraged by
pocket neighborhoods.
""-They). " .
11 f o r
the wa
Just outside Seattle, architect Ross Chapin s
designs for cottage "pocket neighborhoods"
show how crafting close-knit homes can
create a sense of community
loss CHAP':ISATRu.<aETrR0 _-. AL:.,OOEST-rand distinction
in a sea of grandiose and vanilla. "I have a certain amount of save -the -
world complex," he says, and his method is to design and build small
houses-65o to 1,600 square feet or so.
In 1995, Jim Soules, developer and founder of The Cottage Company,
approached Ross about upping the ante from crafting homes to creating
community. Together, they and other investors bought four 77,zoo-square-
foot lots in a small town on the Puget Sound where a visionary zoning
code was already in place. It allowed for double the density of housing
units if the homes were limited to 975 square feet each, shared a common
courtyard, and kept parking areas to the side. It was here that they devised
their first pocket neighborhood: the Third Street Cottages. Jim describes
pocket neighborhoods as "a group of homes that face and relate to one >
IDREW GEIGER WRITER LISA SELIN DAVIS Cottage Living 4/2008 17
PRIDE OF PLACE
retained landscaping
from the original
orchard on the site.
Some of them have
Dutch front doors
(above), enhancing
both the private and
communal features of
the neighborhoods.
another around a landscaped common area —
the old bungalow court approach."
The Third Street Cottages' eight homes, all
between 75o and goo square feet, intimately
hover around a lushly landscaped common
courtyard (around the corner from Ross' own
1,250-square-foot house). Despite warnings
from a few skeptics —"you're making a serious
financial mistake," Ross recalls real estate agents
saying —all eight cottages sold out immediately,
and their value has increased dramatically in the
10 years since.
"When you design around the way people
really live, the houses are a sensible size," he says.
"We don't need a great room and a living room
or a breakfast room and a dining room." His
homes evoke a variety of housing types and
styles, from Victorian cottages to Craftsman
bungalows, with front porches, built-in shelves,
and loft areas: maximizing the minimal space.
The cottages are lovingly rendered in soft olives
and blues, warm terra-cottas. and buttery yellows.
Residents remember Ross visiting daily to adjust
the precise height of a table or tweak the colors
to get what he calls "the sweet spot." "When it's
just right, there's a resonance," Ross says. "It's
what Goldilocks was searching for."
So successful were the Third Street Cottages
that Ross and Tim set out —both together and
separately —to re-create this model in other
parrs of the Puget Sound where a new zoning
policy restricted development in wilderness
areas. The pocket neighborhood model served
to fulfill housing needs by increasing density >
18 Cottage Living 4/2008
1
PRIDE OF PLACE
340 _
in an aesthetically pleasing, neighborhood -
appropriate way. Soon new projects began:
Conover Commons in Redmond, Washington;
Greenwood Avenue Cottages in Shoreline,
Washington; Danielson Grove in Kirkland,
Washington; Umatilla (pronounced "you-
matilla") Hill in Port Townsend, Washington;
and Salish Pond in Gresham, Oregon. More are
on the way.
What makes them so popular is not just the
cute factor —yes, they're adorable —but also
their effects: Smaller homes mean people spend
more time outside; smaller yards mean they use
the communal lawn. Detached parking forces
people to pass one another on the path, as do
detached mailboxes. Smaller houses and yards
also require less maintenance, freeing up money
and time for other things, such as kayaking or
reading a book. Plus, having less space to fill
�mrir
MOONGLO.W,'
says she loves knowing
she can always call a
neighbor to feed her
dog, Luna, in a pinch.
fA
Ka
means you surround yourself only with things
you use or really love. The No. 1 rule of living in
a small house, declares Third Street resident
Mira Jean Steinbrecher, is "Something goes in,
something comes out."
While the design keeps utilities and other
expenses down, it also inspires friendly feelings
among the owners. "I'm working on the social
dimension of architecture even as I'm working
on the physical dimension," says Ross. In spite
of their close proximity to one another, resi-
dents report feeling safe, not exposed. Private
spaces, such as bedrooms and baths, turn away
from the commons; public areas, such as living
rooms and kitchens, face them. Ross emphasizes
shifts between public and private: A low fence, a
narrow pathway, a border of perennials, a step,
an eave, all distinguish one kind of territory
from the next. "It's not a physical barrier; it's a >
':o = Chapin o:r lines
su,.ae.
Pocket neighborhoods
foster friendships among
neighbors.
They provide safe
places for children to
play, with shirttail aunts
and uncles just beyond
their front gate.
Homes look out onto
a park (not parking).
Their placement
contributes to the
liveliness and walkability
of the neighborhood.
20 Cottage Living 4/2008
transition," explains Ross. "The security we're
attempting to achieve is based upon neighborly
relationships, knowing and caring about the
people around you."
Know and care, they do. Even the animals get
along —the three cats and five dogs living in
Umatilla Hill frolic in harmony —and, of course,
you don't need a ferocious guard dog. "You have
heart in here; you can feel it," says Bob Poe, who
moved from a larger, 3,600-square-foot house
in Chicago to a Umatilla Hill cottage. "You have
a feeling that you belong from the start."
At Third Street, they watch one another's
pets and celebrate an annual illumination party
where they line their homes with Christmas
lights and flick them on at the same moment.
Not that living in a pocket neighborhood is
such as the one above right
at Danielson Grove, becomes an extension of the
house, in this case for after -school downtime.
The pocket neighborhoods' design also allows the
architect to be flexible with building placement,
which helps preserve stands of mature trees.
always pure joy: Residents report scuffles over
some of the shared chores and different needs —
weekenders versus full-timers and people on
fixed incomes versus those with disposable
income. But that's part of community, too.
"Diversity doesn't mean eternal bliss, but it adds
liveliness," says Ross. "Neighborhood is not just
an assembly of houses —it's when people care
about their surroundings and they're engaging
with one another. The physical space is the
backdrop for our lives."
22 Cottage Living 4/2008