Sorensen/List of ItemsCi Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
March 29, 2000
Chris Defferding
Waterford Development & Construction Via facsimile: (503) 644-3568
5150 Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Re: Waterford on Suminit Ridge, Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Defferding:
We held a series of staff meetings last week regarding the proposed Waterford
development here in Kalispell. There were an extensive number of items which need to be
addressed, and we broke them into three broad categories: (1) incomplete items which need
additional information; (2) items which need clarification; and (3) items which need to either be
changed to conform to the agreement or be packaged as part of a request for a major amendment
to the agreement. While we have made every effort to be as complete as possible, there may be
additional concerns as we continue to review the project.
Incomplete Items
I Fire Department: Needs a fire site access plan and an engineered internal fire
suppression system plan pursuant to Section 3.08.
2. Parks Department: Needs landscaping and park plans pursuant to Sections 3.09
(a), (b), and (c). Also needs plans and some clarification for the off -site walkway
provided for in Section 3. 10.
3. Zoning: Although not necessary for a building permit, a sign permit will need to be
issued prior to installing any signs. I have enclosed a sign permit application as
you requested in your letter.
4. Public Works: Needs plans/additional information for the following: (a) Section
3.03 on the Four Mile Drive and Summit Ridge Improvements; (b) Section 3.04 on
Interior Roads; (c) Section 3.05 on Sewer and Water; (d) Section 3.06 on Storm
Water, including approval from the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality; (e) an air quality permit under Section 3.07 in regard to site grading; (0
on the erosion control plan, the stabilization method needs to be identified and
note that the improvements are not approved until the drainage plan is submitted
and approved; (g) the Lighting Plan under Section 3.11; and (h) a note that an
access easement will need to be provided to the city in order to provide garbage
service. Prior to issuig a permit, each item needs to addressed. As you
mentioned in your letter, some of these items will require you to post security.
I would strongly encourage you to continue working with each of the individual
departments on those items listed. The next general category in which we placed certain issues
are those items which need clarification.
Need Clarification
Extra Dolex: Some of the submitted drawings show an extra duplex beyond what
is provided for in the agreement. It is located along the eastern boundary. Do you
plan on increasing the number of duplexes?
2. Location of Gate: The gate at the southern end of the property by Summit Ridge is
shown in varying locations. It is specifically identified on the drawing incorporated
into the agreement. Do you plan on moving the gate from the specified location?
Please note that the installation of this gate is, per Section 3.02 (D), subject to the
direction of Public Works.
3. Height of Structure: Section 2.01 (D) sets forth in specific terins the manner of
calculating building height (which is the method contained in our zoning
ordinance). While your letter set forth the average height of the building, the
maximum height is not an average; it is a maximum. Could you please provide
height calculations based on the specified method?
4. Fence Location: The fence details you provided show a 5 foot fence with posts
extending higher. The details do not show the location of the fence on the
property. If it is located within the setback areas, there are height limitations under
the zoning ordinance. Could you please provide a supplemental site plan
indicating the location of the fence?
5. Fire Access: The fire access off of 4 Mile Drive may be slightly too narrow,
although there is certainly more than enough space to make the adjustment. The
Fire Department would like to make sure that each lane is at least 20 feet in width.
The items which need clarification may or may not be moved to the amendment category
depending upon the information we receive. The final category contains those items which we
feel clearly depart from the agreement and need to either be brought into conformance or need to
be packaged as part of a major comprehensive amendment. While some of the items in this
category are viewed as major. many are relatively minor when examined individually and
independently of other changes. However, when viewed as a whole, it is our opinion that they
constitute a major change.
Need Plan Revision or Amendment
I Building Location and Desig : The main portion of the building is located about
125 feet closer to the residential area to the east than called for in the agreement.
As a result, there is a change in the design of the building, particularly as it relates
to the towers, which have been removed from two wings and added onto one
wing.
2. Park Location: Apparently as a result of the building's changed location, the bid
set of plans calls for the relocation or the removal of the park area in the front of
the building between it and the residential area. The 8 1/2" x I I " drawing you sent
me indicates that the park is still in place, but is somewhat modified.
3. Ground Level Parking Changes/Loading Area: The parking arrangement at ground
level has been modified and the loading area has been relocated. The parking may
need to be modified even further depending upon how the underground parking is
addressed.
4. Number of Units: There is a slight rise in the number of units as part of this phase.
You may need to reallocate among phases, which will lead to a reallocation of
parking between phases as well.
5. Underground Parking: In your letter, you requested reallocating 40 of the 80
underground spaces to a later phase. You also requested designating the
underground parking as compact only in order to avoid enlarging the parking area
by approximately 6 feet in order to have the necessary 64 feet in width. As a note,
even if the garage is designated as compact, we do not entirely solve the problem,
although we would certainly be much closer. There would still be remaining
issues, including the fact that some of the spaces are undersized even for compact
spaces and the full number of spaces cannot be provided for through a compact
designation.
6. Total Building Footprint: Although not necessarily directly related to this phase,
we did notice that Section 2.01 (B) places a maximum of 171,130 square feet of
building footprint on the property and the submitted drawings indicate plans for
187,339 square feet of building footprint.
7. Order of Phasing: As I indicated in one of my earlier letters, we are willing to
allow different portions of Phase I to occur out of sequence as long as all of Phase
I is completed prior to moving to Phase 11. However, it may be a good idea to
address the order of phasing as part of the comprehensive package.
8. Bank Use: Although the proposed bank use is minor and would have limited
impact, it is not provided for in the agreement and should be included as an
amendment.
9. Water Main: The plans submitted for review show the water main loop from Four
Mile to the project to be 8" in diameter instead of 12". Under Section 3.05 (B), it
is clear that a 12" line is called for, and that the City will pay for the up -sizing.
10. Sidewalks: Under Section 3.04 regarding interior roads, it is specified that the
roads would be designed and constructed to city standards. City standards call for
sidewalks on both sides of the street. The plans call for a sidewalk on only one
side.
I have also discussed the status of the project with the plans examiner in the Building
Department. He is continuing to work through the plans and will work with you on any issues
which come up. Since the building code is a separate issue from the PUD agreement, I have not
included any such issues in this letter. Also, it is important to keep in mind that building permit
fees, plan review fees, and water/sewer connection fees will need to be paid prior to issuing the
permit.
We have set up a workshop with the City Council on April 10 to look at the issues. Since
it is a workshop, there would not be a vote that night. The workshop method is intended to
provide the Council with the ability to review more complicated matters in more depth than time
allows at regular meetings. We felt that this environment will allow us to go through the issues
more thoroughly. I would imagine that the Council would give us some direction that night on
how they wish to proceed. You are certainly welcome to attend and I would encourage you to do
so in order to answer questions which may come up.
Sincerely,
PJ Sorensen
Zoning Administrator
cc: Mark Fisher
Building Dept.
City Attorney
City Manager
Fire Dept.
Parks Dept.
Public Works