Staff Report/PUD Work SessionCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell. Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: PJ Sorensen, Zoning Administrator
Chris Kukulski� City Manager
MEETING DATE: April 10, 2000 (workshop)
RE: Waterford PUD
BACKGROUND: Roughly one year ago, Waterford Development approached the City
Council with a proposal for a Planned Unit Development. Waterford chose the PUD route and
negotiated a PUD agreement in exchange for the relaxation of certain standards, such as height of
the building, which would have otherwise applied under generally applicable rules.
Waterford has now applied for a building permit for the first phase of their development of
the Waterford PUD. A number of issues have arisen throughout the course of reviewing the
plans. Many of those issues require either an adjustment to the plans to conform with the terms of
the negotiated agreement or an amendment to the agreement itself Waterford has, in fact,
formally requested two amendments: (1) reallocating 40 underground parking spaces to a later
phase; and (2) adjusting for dimensional requirements of the remaining 40 underground spaces by
designating the garage as "compact only" and adding spaces above ground.
The Site Development Review Committee reviewed the proposal pursuant to Section 5.01
of the PLJD agreement (see attachment). The section sets forth the procedure for amending the
agreement. The Committee viewed the proposals as a major change, particularly in fight of a
11 IIII;IIIIIII!III1aIIIIII IIIIIIIIII qpii III IIII I g1g, I
T
111 L
I I- - # f # -- — . - .
those provisions. The Committee then forwarded the request to the City Council (see attached
ri—IT"ITWNWOUT"t I
im
"ITITTI111111P.31I
=11=4 IT -C
broke that list into three categories: (1) incomplete items which require additional information; (2)
III I I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIpqg
course, as things progress, items in category I or 2 may change to category 3 depending upon the
A letter was sent to Waterford detailing the list and suggesting that packaging all of the
potential amendments into one comprehensive proposal would be the most efficient course of
action (see attached letter of March 29, 2000). A letter in response to that letter was received on
April 5 (see attached). The Site Review Committee went through the response on April 6 and
designated the requested changes as a portion of the package constituting a major change.
Based on Waterford's response and an analysis of the overall situation, the Site Review
��, I-1 I �==-VOV MIIP
major, many are relatively minor when examined individually and independently of other changes.
Aga4 we want to stress that the minor issues have been packaged with more serious concerns
comprehensive proposal. The issues are as follows:
1. Building Location and The main 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. As
mentioned above, the public comment received on this project was greatly
concerned with the impact on the adjoining neighborhood.
2. Park Location: The park in the area between the main building and the
residential area is being revised- Although the bid set of drawings show the park
as entirely removed, Waterford has indicated that the park will be located in this
area and that their engineer is working on drawings to that effect. Nevertheless,
due to the building's changed location, there would be at least some revision of t1i.
park area.
3. Underground Parkina: Waterford has formally requested that 40 of their 80
required underground parking spaces be deferred to a later phase. They have also
requested that the underground parking be designated as "compact only" due to
the fact that garage is 6 feet too narrow for standard size parking spaces with two-
way, 90 degree parking. However, even if designated as compact, there would
still be a shortfall which would need to be made up above ground. Furthermore,
the Committee strongly felt that compact parking is not a very practical solution
and would pose a series of problems in both terrns of actual use and fitting under
the zoning ordinance, particularly once the second set of 40 spaces are installed.
4. Ground Level Parking Chappes/Loading : The parking arrangement at
ground level has been modified and the loading area relocated. The parking may
be modified even further depending upon how the underground parking is
addressed.
5. Number of Units: There is a slight rise in the number of units as part of this
phase. Waterford would like to reallocate the number of units and the
corresponding parking between phases.
6. Total Building Footpr
�mt: 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 budding footprint on the property. The submitted drawings show plans of
187,339 square feet. Waterford's response letter asks for an increase to 181,950
square feet.
7. Order of Phasing: The order of phasing has been slightly modified and the
&!#��eement should reflect that change.
9. 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. In Waterford's response letter, they request the elimination of the
requirement for certain portions of the developmem
10. Extra Duplex: Waterford proposes to add a duplex along the eastern
boundary.
11. Fence Location: The proposed fence is located in the setback area and is
subject to a 42" height restriction in the front setback- An amendment is necessary
in order to install the 5' to 6' high fence.
The She Review Committee weighed the impacts of the proposals and determined that
they,,.vould be generaIly acceptable subject to (1) Council's determination, after weighing the
public comment and input, regarding the impact on the adjoining neighborhood; (2) 4 Mile Drive
Nrim I
provide for one entrance and one exit, a one-way traffic aisle, and angled, standard sized parking
spaces, all of which can be done without substantially modif�ing the structure of the building, and
a few spaces being added above ground to cover the slight reduction in the number of spaces
resulting from the angled parking; and (4) that the specific location of the gate at the south end of
the property be designated by the Fire and Public Works Departments.
RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that the Council give staff direction to
negotiate a comprehensive addendum to the PUD agreement according to the terms set forth
above with the intent of bringing said addendum before the Council for a vote at a later date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS: -Section 5.01 of the PUD (re: anxndments)
-Memo of March 17, 2000, with attacbed letter of March 9, 2000, from
Chris Defferding, Waterford Development
-Letter dated March 29, 2000 to Chris Defferding, Waterford Development
-Letter dated April 5, 2000 from Chris Defferding, Waterford Development
I
PJ Sorensen
rator
Zoning Administ :1
AM=
L "tk IT, F _r#-,- riz a
Nm
:LZ7%-7q;7-A6%V%V - — - - — -
5.01 This Development Agreement may be amended or modified
only by application of Waterford, in accordance with the
procedures set forth herein.
(A) Applications for amendment or modification may be
made to the City of Kalispell Site Review
Committee.
(1) Modifications of this Agreement which are
deemed by said Site Review Committee to be
minor modifications shall require only the
consent of the Site Review Committee, ant
shall not require the consent of the City
Council or any other public agency.
(2) All amendments and modifications of this
Agreement other than minor modifications shall
require the approval of the City Council.
(3) All applications for modifications 0
amendments of the Agreement shall be f ile
with the Site Review Committee and the Sit�l--
Review Committee shall promptly, within 1 1
days, determine whether the modifications ar-
major or minor.
(4) The Site Review Committee shall make its
determinations with respect to any application
for minor modifications subject to this
Section within 15 days af ter it determines the
application to be subject to said minor
modification.
(5) if the amendment or modification requested is
of such a nature as to require approval of the
City Council, the Site Review Committee shall
refer the matter to the City Council within
fifteen (15) days after it determines the
matter to require Council review.
(6) Waterford may appeal the decision of the Site
Review Committee to the City Council, who may
affirm, reverse or modify the Site Review
Committee decision.
H: \att\wp\waterfordPUDA9 -13-
Q�ty of Kalispell
Post Ofike Box 1997 - Kalispell. Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
Chris Defferding
Waterford Development & Construction
5150 Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Re: Waterford on Summit Ridge, Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Defferding:
March 29, 2000
Via facsimile: (503) 644-3568
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 ma or 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
1. 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. Zonin 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; (f)
on the erosion control plan, the stabilization method needs to be identified and
�d
note that the improvements are not approved until the drainage plan is submitt
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
service. Nor to issuing a permit, each itein needs to addressed. As You
mentioned in your letter, some of these items wM 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.
Extra Dur)lex: Some of the submitted drawings show an extra duplex beyond vdq
is provided for in the agreement. It is located along the eastern boundary. Do
plan on increasing the number of duplexes? 1
2. Location of Gat : 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. Heip-ht of Structure: Section 2.01 (D) sets forth in specific terrns 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 ra0ved 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.
1. Building- Location and Design: The main portion of the building is located about
125 feet closer to the residential area to the east than called for in the agreenxmt.
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 Y2" x I V drawing you sent
me indicates that the park is still in place, but is somewhat modified.
3. Ground Level Parkinp- Ch;anges/LggdjLig Area: The parking arrangement at ggro '4
level has been modified and the loading area has been relocated. The parking mal
need to be modified even further depending upon how the underground parking
addre&%;;-wAL
4. Number of U it : 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 &ct 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 Phasine: 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.
5. Water Main: T'he plans submitted for review show the water main loop trom 0
Mile to the project to be 8" in diameter instead of 12". Under Section 3.05 (B),
is clear that a 12" line is called for, and that the City will pay for the up-si i I
10. Sidewalks: Under Section 3.04 regarding inte6or roads, it is specified that the
roads would be designed and constructed to city standards. City standards can 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
Departinent. He is continuing to work through the plans and will work with you on any'
which come up. Since the building code is a separate issue from the PUD agreement, I have
included any such issues in this letter. Also, it is important to keep in mind that building
fees, plan re -view fees, and water/sewer connection fees will need to be paid prior to issuing
permit. I
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 work -shop 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 atte-nd and I would encourage you to do
sa in order to answer questions which may come up.
Sincerely,
PJ Sorensen
Zoning Administrator
cc: Mark Fisher
Fire Dept.
Parks Dept.
Public Works
Citv of Kalispell
NNEWEMM 111MMERM
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell. Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRIS KUKULSKI, CITY MANAGER
GLEN NEIER, CITY ATTORNEY
THERESA WMTE, CLERK OF COUNCEL
FROM: PJ SORENSEN, SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
DATE: MARCH 17,2000
RE: WATERFORD
Waterford has submitted a request for amendments to the Site Development Review
Committee per Section 5.01 of the Waterford Planned Unit Development Agreement. The
request was received via facsimile on March 10; the letter was received on March 13. The
Committee reviewed the proposal on March 16 and determined that the proposal constituted a
major change. Therefore, per the Agreement, the Committee is forwarding the request to the City
Council. I have attached a copy of the request as well as a let -ter sent to Waterford. In the letter,
I have indicated that their submitted plans contain a number of deviations from the Agreement
which should be packaged with the present requests. At the present time, the various departments
on the Comn-iittee are preparing lists which they will forward to me to pass on to Waterford.
Please let me know if there is any additional infon-nation you need.
Waterford Development & Construction Co.
5150 SW Griffith Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
503-646-51869 503-644-3568 FAX
Date: March 9, 2000 Method: Mail
To: City of Kalispell
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana, 59903-1997
Attn: PJ Sorensen
Joe Billig, Mark Fisher
From: Chris Defferding
C-;I
Project: Waterford on Summit Ridge
. Kalispell, Montana 599,01
E0NM=,
This letter is in response to your letter dated (12-23-99). 1 have numbered the items to
correspond with your letter.
1) 1 have included a light fixture cut that should meet the City of Kalispell's requirements.
The light is directed down and the fixtures have the option for internal reflectors to keep
the light out of adjoining properties. A proposed lighting plan will be submitted to the
Director of Public Works for his approval.
2) The Bank anticipated in the project is a similar use as the Store, Beauty, Pharmacy (ref.
2.02), where they would be for the use and convenience of our residents. Typically, the
Bank is open one or two days per week for two hours. The Bank consists of an office and
small storage area that could be included in the total area currently allowed (7,500 Sq.FQ
for trade and services.
3) We are in the process of working with each concemed department and securing their
approval. Attached find a list we will used in gaining each departments approval.
4) We understand that all portions of Phase I (I (Cottages), IA (Main Building), 113 (Health
Care Neighborhood and Touchmark Health and Fitness Center) are required to be
completed before future phases can begin.
Wkmt-026.doo
March 9, 2000
Page 2
5) A sign permit will be secured from the City of Kalispell. Could you please send us a copy
of the Sign Permit Application? We anticipate two or three "Waterford" signs mounted on
stone monuments. See the attached example.
6) 1 have recalculated the Number of Units plannecL When the site is totally built out we will
have 294 units, which matches what the agreement allows, however, Phase 1 (1, IA, 113)
will be a total of 163 (which is 19 less than allowed in the agreement). For a discussion
and suggestion on the parking see Item 10 below.
7) 1 have calculated the average Building Height to be 48-5". This includes all phases of the
three story building, including the exposed portions of the basement used for vehicular
access. Tle elevations were taken at 20' from the building. It does not include the
portions of the building that are one and two stories tall, nor the two towers which are 56'
tall.
8) Attached find the gate and fence elevations. The gate would be keypad operated in and
automatic OUL
9) Off-street loading will be in the Northwest portion of the site. All food and equipment
deliveries will be handled through this area, with exception of resident furniture. Resident
moving will be allowed through the main and secondary entrances.
�� M.
a) Site P!ans: I am sorry for the confusion regarding the differences in the site plans.
We have been doing some fine tuning of the plan. The plan submitted on November
10 is the latest and final design. The Civil Engineers have been sent a copy of the
revised East parking area and will submit revised plans as required.
b) Snow Storage: Snow storage can be placed in the landscaped areas, however, we
will not place snow close to the existing buildings.
c) Civil drawings show typical parking and road details. Copies of these have been
included in this letter.
d) The access mad around the perimeter of the main building will be constructed during
Phase IA, I have tried to mark parking as future around where building additions
will be built. This should facilitate the future construction and not disrupt parking
during the additions.
UTI 5rjkmy M71,
March 9, 2000
Page 3
e) Parking stall dimensions will be modified on the plans. I have included a revised
detail for your review.
f) Driving aisles are a minimum of 24' wide. Reference the road sections from Item
10c above.
g) I agree, the agreement required 80 underground spaces. I would like to modify the
agreement to require 40 underground spaces in Phase I and 40 underground spaces in
Phase U.
h) The underground parking requirements are a difficulty. The parking spaces will be
9' wide by 17' long with an aisle of 24', although the columns encroach into the aisle
be about 9-1/2" on each side. All parking spaces will be at least 9' wide except the
ones on the end in the basement where the column spaces are different. In this case,
the three spaces on each side will be 8'-6". wide. I think you are aware that this plan
has been built a couple times in other States and does work for our residents. I think
part of the reason is that many of the residents own vehicles, but don't drive often,
thus the underground parking is full, but not busy. I also accept that you need to
follow your ordinances. I would request that we treat the underground parking as
compact units and increase the surface parking by 9 spaces. I have included a revised
site plan that adds 9 spaces to the surface parking.
Thank you for your time. Please review this and let me know if you have other thoughts or
questions.
Very truly yours,
Chris Defferdi
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - KaIL9)61, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
March 17,2000
Chris Defrerding
Waterford Development & Construction Via facsimile: (503) 644-3568
5150 Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Re: Waterford on Summit Ridge, Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Defferding:
The Site Development Review Comrnittee met and &-cussed your request for
amendments to the development agreement. The Committee decided that the requests constitute
a major change and will forward it as such to the city counciL
As we have discussed previously, there also appears to be a number of other aspects of the
submitted plans which do not conform with the agreement. The various depamnents represented
on the Committee wiH be providing me with a list of the items they need to address. It is our
suggestion and recommendation that A of the changes be packaged as one proposal rather than
generating separate ones. I will forward the combined list to you as soon as I can.
Sincerely,.
PJ Sorensen
Zoning Administrator
cc: Mark Fisher
Touchmark Development & Construction Cw.
5150 SW Griffith Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
503-646-51863 503-644-3568 FAX
Phone Conversation
Date: April 5,2000 Method: MaH
To: City of Ka"I
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana, 59"3-1997
Attn: PJ Sorensen
T1
Pfolect: Waterford on Summit RJd"_
Kalispell, Montana 599011
Dear Mr. Sorensen,
I will be attending the Council work session on Monday (4-10). In addition, there will be a
-il ler
--mber of people from our office attending. They will be f oe BiM&, Bernie Neil, Rita Mg
Jay Billmayer. Joe and Bernie are ultimately responsible for the project from our office� Rita
is ouT representative from Missoula and fay, of course, is our Civil Engineer.
-My hope is that this letter will answer some of your questions from your letter dated
-29-00, A few items I have not tried to answer here, but we can address on Monday.
1--complete Items
have included a check list we developed from the agreement which covers your Items I
i 4, with the responsible party identifiecL
-ed Clarification
1) We have added one additional duplex on the site plan and wish to increase the
number to 13 duplexes and one tri-plex for a total of 29 units.
2-) We wish to place the break -away barrier on Waterford Way, not on Summit Ridge
Djive. Our thought is that Summit Ridge Drive eventually wiU be continued to the
West.
'1111!kxd -CG 13 - LIM
"M
f-ity of Kalispell
Apri 15, 2000
Page 2 of 3
3) The height of the building varies of courm I have attached a plan of the building
showing the heights where they occur on the site. In the location of tM ramps to the
basement, the height was taken at the garage doors, wtfieh is the maximunL
1111110F I I � I I I I I' pp I I �!� I I p I � I I I I I 1� I � M��
ff.] F A �111 I
1) The building has been moved toward the East to minimize the impact on the entire
site. ne site slopes toward the West. We wanted to avoid building large retaining
waLls on the West side of the building and the parking areas.
2) Our intention is to locate the park between the duplex residential area and the main
building. Our Civil Engineer is working on showing the park in this location.
0
3) The overall paricing scheme will be better served by addressing during the work
sessim—'.
Could we increase the number of units for phase I and reduce the number for futuy.-
phases? In doing this, we would increase the parking for phase I as required.
5) As I noted above, the overall parking scbem will be better served by addressing
during the work session.
6) 1 have recalculated the overall building footprint. Including all phases, the footprint
of the main building will be 124,160 sq. ft T"he Duplexes (includes the 13 duplexes
proposed) and tri-plex wjH total 57.789 sq. ft- The ultimate total is currently plan -nod
at 181,950 sq. ft, still over the agreed total of 171,130, although closer. Can we
amend this item?
7) Typically, our phasing (on other projects) has gone as follows;
Phase I
Start Construction on the Main Building (IA)
Shortly after construction begins, submit plans for review of the HCN and
Senior Health and Fitness (1B). Start construction when Building Permit is
approved. Early into the Construction of the Main Building, submit plans for
the Tri-plex. Begin construction as soon as the permit is approve& The Th.
plex serves as a model for the rest of the Dulexes. ne Duplexes are
constructed as they are sold.
Phase H
Consmict V shaped additions to the north of the Main Building (2A�
Construct additional Duplexes as they are sold.
Phase 1111
Construct V shaped additions to the south of the Main Building (3A�
Construct Octagon QB)
9) The Agreement does call foT upsizing to a 12" line where the new section of pipe is
required in Four NUe Drive. I will work with Billmayer Engineering to get d-se plans
corrected.
110.) We have placed a sidewalk around the entirt perimeterof the main building on
Waterford Loop. We have also placed a sidewalk in front of each of the duplexes
and tri-plex, On Waterford Ikop there will be no development on the outside
perimeter and we request e�minating the, requirement for sidewalks on both sides.
I �.ope. ths answers some of the queations. Thank you for youi- time and I look forward to
mi-.eting you onMonday and discussing this project with you and the Council.
Very truly yours,
-;UT
chi
'-IVk,-nt-036AW