Neier/Waterford PUD SubmittalsThe City of Kah.-F-nell
Incorporated 1892'
Office of the City Attomey
Glen Neier, City Attomey P.O. Box 1997
Richard Hickel, Asst. City Attorney Kalispell MT 59903-1997
Telephone: (406) 758-7708
December 28, 1999 Fax (406) 758-7771
To: Jim Hansz,
Director of Public Works
Jay Billmayer
Billmayer Enginrring
From: Glen Neier
City Attorney
Re: Waterford bmii\tals
I am in receipt of a memo dated November 24, 1999 from Jim Hansz,
Director of Public Works, concerning a letter of November 12, 1999
from Jay Billmayer to Jim Hansz, commenting on Submittal of
Construction Plans and Specifications for the Waterford PUD. I have
reviewed the executed PUD Agreement and the large map drawings to
ascertain the appropriate response to the points mentioned in the
letter authored by Billmayer. In most instances this office was able
to find language in the Agreement or information on the drawings
which disposed of the concerns. This letter will outline the
determination made by this office on specific points mentioned in
the letter.
1. Cul-de-sac at Summit Ridge and Waterford Way. The large map
drawings submitted with the executed PUD Agreement clearly show
Summit Ridge extending 301 past its proposed intersection with
Waterford Way. Section 3. 03 (B) of the PUD Agreement designates
that Summit Ridge Drive shall extend 301 feet "beyond said
extension's intersection with the private drive (Waterford Way)
connecting the emergency entrance with the primary entrance."
No cul-de-sac is indicated on the drawings, nor is one
contemplated in the PUD Agreement.
2. § 3.06 (B) of the PUD Agreement states:
A) Waterford acknowledges that the development of the Subject
property includes development, at Waterford's expense, of
storm drainage facilities. It is acknowledged by Waterford
that a storm drainage plan must be designed and approved
prior to the erection of any building on the Project
Property.
Jim Hansz
Jay Billmayer
December 28, 1999
Page 2
B) Waterford agrees to obtain from the appropriate State,
Federal and local agencies all necessary permits,
including review under the City's Standards for Design and
Construction, authorizing the construction and maintenance
of said storm drainage facilities, likewise to be obtained
prior to the issuance of any foundation or building permit
on the Project Property.
The Agreement contemplates Waterford to have a drainage plan
designed and approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Further, the Agreement requires Waterford to present
security assuring development of the drainage system prior to
obtaining a building permit for any Phase.
3. Paragraph # 3 is puzzling in that the Agreement under § 3.05
(D) designates all utility infrastructure improvements on site
to be the property and maintenance responsibility of
Waterford. The City does not assume, per the Agreement, any
maintenance, operation or replacement responsibility for said
infrastructure. This office can see no point in having an
easement for something over which the City has no control.
4. The Master Site Plan, executed June 14, 1999 shows sidewalks on
one side only, on the private street connecting Summit Ridge
with Four Mile Drive. The Agreement does not expand the
sidewalk requirement beyond the Master Site Plan.
5. The Master Site Plan does designate a crossing on Four Mile
Drive to the Ball Parks, "as approved by the Director of Parks
and Recreation".
6. This office is unsure of the meaning of $ 5 of the November 12
letter.
7. With regard to Four Mile Drive the Agreement states at § 3.03
(C) :
Four Mile Drive shall be developed to the standards equal
to the design and construction of the City's construction
on Four Mile Drive. In the event the City reconstructs
Four Mile Drive in accordance with the Standards for
Design and Construction for local streets, Waterford
agrees to participate in the reconstruction.
This office is not fully aware of the City's reconstruction in
Four Mile Drive. However, it does not appear that Waterford can
Jim Hansz
Jay Billmayer
December 28, 1999
Page 3
be held to a higher standard.
8. § 3.04 of the Agreement deals with interior roads. According
to said section all interior roads are to be designed and
constructed to local standards in accordance with the City's
Standards for Design and Construction. Construction Standard
SD-2 shows a cross section of local street and specifies the
material as 1211 select sub -base, 311 crushed and 41, asphalt. The
interior road connecting Summit Ridge with Four Mile Drive is
to be 281 wide with all other interior roads to be 241 wide.
Parking lots were not addressed in the Agreement, nor is there
a requirement for parking lots in the Standards for Design and
Construction.
9. § 3.05 (13) describes water service on Four Mile Drive as
follows:
Water service to the Subject Property shall be looped by
extension of the existing eight inch (811) line currently
existing in Four Mile Drive and the currently existing
twelve inch (1211) line in Summit Ridge Drive. City agrees
to pay for the up -sizing of new line in Four Mile Drive
to the Subject Property to twelve inches (1211) as part of
the project.
The Agreement contemplates that installation of a twelve inch
(1211) inch line in Four Mile Drive is at City expense.
Finally, there has been some reference to alteration to the Master
Site Plan by relocation of roads and buildings. Generally, the PUD
Agreement and Master Site Plan establishes the parameters of the
development. Modifications may be accomplished under § 5.01, and are
either minor or major in accordance with the determination of the
Site Review Committee. If alterations have been made to the Master
Site Plan a determination needs to be made in accordance with the
Agreement.
I believe this memo discusses all points of concern mentioned in
Billmayer letter of November 12, 1999. Please advise if more input
from this office is needed.
pc: Chris Kukulski