05. Resolution 4449 - Waterford AnnexationRESOLUTION NO. 4449
A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION THE
WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD COUNTY, LOCATED IN THE N/W 1/4 OF SECTION 1,
TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA
(WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A") TO BE KNOWN
AS THE WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD VALLEY NO. 289; TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO DECLARE
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from
Holister Larson, First Interstate Bank, et al as Co -Trustee for J.
Austin Miller Trust, L. Peter Larson and Dan Eigeman, Co -Trustee
for J. Austin Miller Trust, the owners of property located
generally South of Four Mile Drive and West of Summit Ridge Drive
and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and thereby made a part
hereof, requesting that the City of Kalispell annex the territory
into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office has made a
report on The Waterford of Flathead Valley, Annexation Request,
#KA-99-1, dated February 2, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the territory be annexed into the City
of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, said territory is included within and conforms to the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property
in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code
Annotated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That all the real property as described in
Exhibit A, be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the
boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and shall
be known as The Waterford of Flathead Valley No. 289.
SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Resolution,
the Clerk of Council is directed to make and certify
under the seal of the City, a copy of the record of these
proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the City
Council and file said documents with the Flathead County
Clerk and Recorder.
From and after the date of filing of said documents as
prepared by the Clerk of Council, or on the effective
H:\attsect\wp\res\annexation\waterfordannex.wper- 1 -
date hereof, whichever shall occur later, said annexed
territory is part of the City of Kalispell and its
citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws
and ordinances and regulations in force in the City of
Kalispell and shall be entitled to the same privileges
and benefits as are other parts of the City.
SECTION III. The territory annexed by this Resolution
shall be zoned in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective April 30,
1999.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS DAY OF , 1999.
Wm. E. Boharski
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
Clerk of Council
H:\attsect\wp\res\annexation\waterfordannex.wpd-2 —
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
February 17, 1999
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Waterford of Flathead Valley
Dear Al:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of
February 9, 1999, and considered a request from Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, for
annexation of approximately 23 acres into the city with initial zoning of R-4 and RA-1
along with an planned unit development for the purpose of constructing a 292 senior
housing facility. With development taking place under three phases, it would include
several cottage units consisting of 12 duplexes and one tri-plex with the remaining units
being a mix of congregate units in the main facility.
Narda Wilson, with the Flathead Regional Development Office, presented a staff report
outlining the proposal and the issues related to the project. The staff recommended
approval of the proposal subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
At the public hearing, Mark Fisher, representing The Waterford, spoke in favor of the
proposal explaining why they believe this property to be the best location in Kalispell for
the development. He emphasized the need for a gated road for the residents' safety and
security. He asked that the traffic impact study include an assessment of the prorated
share of the cost of the necessary improvements to Four Mile Drive. There were three
others who spoke in favor of the development.
Nine people spoke against the proposal; each citing concerns on safety, water run-off,
neighborhood compatibility, aesthetics and traffic. The neighbors were all strongly
opposed to having a public road which, in the future, could be used as a connector road
from Four Mile Drive and the ball fields through their neighborhood. They felt that the
increase in traffic would cause considerable problems and safety concerns. There were
letters and petitions, signed by the neighbors, submitted to the board and entered into the
record at the meeting as well. You will find copies of those petitions and letters attached
to the staff report.
A motion was made to adopt staff reports KA-99-2 and KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and
to forward a recommendation for approval of the project subject to the conditions as
Waterford of Flathead Valley
February 17.1999
Page 2 of S
amended. The motion passed on a vote of seven in favor an one opposed. The
recommended conditions of approval are outlined in Attachment A.
Please schedule this matter for consideration by the council at their March 1, 1999,
regular meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Narda
Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office at (406) 758-5980.
JJ/NW/tl
Attachments: FRDO Report #KPUD-99-1 and packet and public hearing materials
Attachment A
Draft minutes from the 2/9/99 planning board meeting
c: w/Att Theresa White, City Clerk
c: w/o Att Billmayer Engineering, 2191 Third Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901
H: \... \KAL\ 1999 \KPUD-99-1
Waterford of Flathead Valley
February 17. 1999
Page 3 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD V L , LLC
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE KALISPELL CITY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with application
submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the city council.
2. That the extension of all services and facilities be done in accordance with the
KsPeg'aExtension -o€-SeMees-p}an- dated -November- 6, , 995ylans approved by
the Kalispell Public Works Department.
3. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department.
4. That the fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department.
S. That the necessary easements be obtained for the extension of water and sewer
services to the site.
6. That the developer assess the need for a traffic impact study with the Public Works
Department to identify anticipated traffic impacts, the source of traffic generation
and the appropriate share of the costs be determined prior to construction-an4
7. That -the proposed new roadway connecting between Four Mile Drive and Summit
Ridge Drive be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and
Construction Standards for local streets, and that upon completion, the road be
certified by a certified engineer licensed in Montana that the road has been so
constructed.
8. That the proposed new roadway be--dedieated tet--he City of Kelispe4l upon
eenzgletien-and-that-i #e-epen e-1ts� private and gated to serve as an
emergency access route only with sole access to the facility from Four Mile Drive.
Upon completion the road shall be signed in accordance with City standards.
9. That Four Mile Drive be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's
Design and Construction Standards for local streets and that a prorated cost be
shared based on the results of the traffic studv and agreed uvon by all parties
identified. Upon completion, the road be certified by an engineer licensed in
Montana that that road has been so constructed.
Waterford of Flathead Valley
February 17, 1999
Page 4 of 5
10. Street trees shall placed within the landscape boulevard for the proposed new road
and be spaced at a minimum of 50 foot interval and shall be a minimum of a two
inch caliper at planting.
11. That the proposed new road shall be named and signed in accordance with the City
of Kalispell standards.
12. That a sidewalk or pedestrian path be constructed which provides a continuous
walkway from the facility to the ball park to the north and that a location for a
crossing connecting with the City's proposed pedestrian path be coordinated with
the Kalispell parks and Recreation Department
13. That a landscape plan shall be submitted which provides landscaping around the
perimeter of the site, at the entrance and throughout the parking lots which shall be
submitted to the Flathead Regional Development Office for review and approval prior
to construction.
14.
. The park area designated as the
courtvard on the site plan be developed which provides amenities such as tables,
walkways, landscaping and trees.
15. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes parking lot lighting fixtures which
do not exceed 15 feet in height and using shielded lenses which are not visible from
beyond the property boundaries. Low level pedestrian and landscape lighting shall
be approved. No up lighting of the facility shall be permitted or other lighting which
create dispersed lighting around the facility or lighting which will create intrusive
impacts in the area. Sensitivity to the type and level of lighting necessary to achieve
security but not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose shall be used. A
lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Flathead Regional Development
Office prior to construction.
16. That the use of retaining walls in excess of four feet tall be avoided, but rather the
implementation of landscaped terracing be used to make the transition in the areas
requiring this type of work.
17. That a sign plan shall be submitted to the Kalispell Zoning Administrator which
complies with the zoning regulations for the district in which it is located. The sign
shall be externally lit, made of natural colors and materials and which utilizes an
integrated architectural design compatible with the facility.
18. That the units within the facility shall not be deeded as real estate or as
condominium units without first obtaining subdivision approval from the Kalispell
City Council.
Waterford of Flathead Valley
February 17, 1999
Page S of 5
19. That the Phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding
for the proposed infrastructure and improvement or other acceptable means of
insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by
the developer.
20. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based on
terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
OPPONENTS No one spoke in opposition.
BOARD DISCUSSION Gardner answered, when asked by Brenneman, that they were
comfortable with the conditions in the staff report.
MOTION Heinecke moved to amend condition #3, to include `and rear' and
#9 changed to `all street addresses', Stevens seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote: Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, and Rob
Heinecke voted Aye; Don Mann, Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson,
Don Hines and Don Garberg voted No. The motion to amend the
conditions famed on a vote of 5-3 against.
Sipe moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report FPP-98-13
as findings of fact and recommend that the Flathead County
Commissioners approve the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Ashley
Business Park, subject to the 10 conditions as listed in the report.
On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. None opposed. The
motion passed on 8-0 in favor.
WATERFORD A request by the Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, represented by
ANNEXATION & ZONE Joseph Billig, for annexation, initial zoning of R-4, Two Family
CHANGE Residential, and RA-1, Low Density Apartment Residential and a
planned unit development on 22.91 for the purpose of developing
a 292 unit senior housing facility.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, gave a detailed presentation of staff
reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD-99-1 in which staff recommends
that the Board adopt the reports as findings of fact and
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the
property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 with a PUD overlay subject to 20
conditions as outlined in the report.
Staff recommends that in condition #6 MT Dept. of Transportation
be stricken and leave in Flathead County Road Department.
Heinecke asked about extension of services, and Wilson explained
that through condition #2, there is flexibility by the Public Works
Department to adopt a design that works.
Johnson asked about the need for 2 zone designations and Wilson
explained that R-4 was chosen for the duplex area of the project to
better match the proposed development.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in
favor of the application.
PROPONENTS Mark Fisher, representing Waterford, gave a presentation of the
planned development, explaining that the Waterford is a
Congregate Care Retirement Community, and that this is for the
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 3 of 13
journey of aging for the elderly within a community, complete with
a special care unit, (Alzheimer's unit). They have chosen this area
because of it's proximity to the college and the ball parks as well
as being within a quiet community. The PUD will not create a lot
of traffic or increase the number of children in the neighborhood.
They, after a year of research, believe that this is the best area of
the city to build this community. The Waterford feels very strongly
that this needs to be a gated secure road, because of the residents'
needs for a secure area with limited traffic, and for the
neighborhood's desire to not have this become a connector road.
They provide transportation internally, there is no need for county
buses, Eagle transportation would only be used secondarily. The
plans are for a very nice rock front building, with a small area
exceeding the 44 foot height and the problem will be mitigated by
the excavation for grade taking off about 10 feet of grade. They
put the buildings in an area that would not restrict views of
glacier, but will only be seen by homes that are currently only
seeing the hill and sky, and those will now only see their roof and
highest floors. They are working toward being a good neighbor.
They are aware of the potential run off problems and have made
and continue to plan for -the best solution to the problem. The
`what ifs" (in regard to the run off) are being addressed by their
engineers and they want to find the best possible solution within
their abilities.
Dan Eigeman, CPA representing the property owners, spoke in
favor of the project. He explained that he has seen the Waterford
development in Helena and it is an excellent facility. The owners,
as well as himself, are in favor of the proposed planned
development and do not believe the closed road would cause any
traffic problems for the community. His home is in the area and
he isn't concerned over the height of the development because
between the trees and a few homes he can't see the top of the hill
anyway. Believes they will be a wonderful neighbor.
Jay Billmayer, project engineer for Waterford, spoke as a
proponent of the project. He addressed the issues of the
conditions, and the PUD concept by putting the zoning,
annexation and PUD all in one application. The 292 units is care
for individual units not dwelling units, therefore he feels they fall
well within the density requirements. The Planned Unit
Development gives the specifics of this plan in advance, so that
the community knows what the outcome will be. The phases then
give an up front plan as well, so there are no surprises later.
Waterford has concerns over being burdened with a more than fair
share portion of the extension of services and roadways. In going
over the conditions separately, it was requested that it be
determined how much the Waterford is impacting the roadway and
services and how much is due to the cities venture in the ball
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting FeNvary 9, 1999
Page 4 of 13
parks, by generating a study to determine a prorated share of
cost. The privatizing of the road will give more security and less
impact to the communities, and the elimination of solicitors that
cause the elderly a number of problems. The Waterford asks for
the following condition changes:
#6 Eliminate the Dept. of Transportation.
#8 Eliminate the condition in its entirety.
#9 Modify to a prorated share after a traffic study is completed.
# 14Eliminate, because it is within the plan in condition # 12 and
they, based on studies and experience, would not have a use for
an internal park area.
#2 Change to include more latitude in conjunction with #9 and a
prorate of cost.
John King, 134 N. Haven Drive, spoke for the proposal stating
that this would be an improvement to Kalispell, with no impact to
the schools, and that he believes that it would be less of an impact
than other potential projects.
Johnson gave a 5 minute break and the meeting reopened at 9:15.
Wayne Worthington, 365 Summit Ridge Drive, voiced several
OPPONENTS concerns over drainage, water and budding height but his main
concern is over the roadways. He does not want any kind of
connection between 4 mile drive and Summit Ridge Road, or
extending Sherry Lane into North Haven Drive, and does not want
the sporting event traffic coming through the communities, but
would not have a problem with a gated road for development use
or emergency traffic only.
Carol Burt, resident on Summit Ridge Drive, has 4 major areas of
concern. Concurs with Worthington's assessment of the roads
and traffic and wants improvements to 4 Mile Drive first and then
have a gated road open to emergency traffic only within the
development. She does not understand the residential zoning
(rather than commercial) for a development this extensive and with
this density and that will make $600,000 per year, and that will
exceed the zoning height by 21 feet. Water run off - extreme
concerns over the run off, leaving too little open space to pile
snow, and with the buildings and asphalt there will be no place for
the water to go except to flood the lower communities. Continuity
- the very size and location of their complex discredits the
Waterford's statement that they wish to blend into the community.
Only with the 35 foot height limitation and modifications to their
current plan could their impact to the community be minimized.
She asks that Waterford be held to the same landscaping
requirements as the homeowners in the same area.
Lori Smithwick-Hann, 435 Summit Ridge Drive, agrees with the
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 5 of 13
previous speakers against the proposal. She feels the community
was bulldozed by the Waterford Company because they were
notified such a short period of time before the meeting, even if the
legalities were followed. Cited regulations about the mile and one
half distance of the development from the fire station, causing
regulatory problems as well as serious safety issues. Wants to see
a specific site proposal. And stated concerns for the need for such
a facility, and the possibility that the facility would not be able to
fill to capacity based on the high costs of staying at the facility.
Devaluation of property, and the lowering of the quality of life in
the community were other concerns.
Sandy Streit, 340 Summit Ridge Drive, (gave out a letter,
attached), spoke against the Waterford Development and for
children in the area and their safety. There are no sidewalks in
the area and the increased traffic will be a serious safety concern.
Wants children's safety issue to be heard loud and clear.
Gloria Marin, 121 N. Haven Drive, had concern over the impact on
wildlife in the area, construction problems, and asking that the
Zone change be denied based on MCA 76-2-304 Purposes of
Zoning, with regards to item 1, to prevent overcrowding of land
and to avoid undue concentration of population, and all of item 2
in the above code. She believes the proposal is contrary to the
comprehensive plan for the area, and oppose the road from 4 Mile
Drive to Summit Ridge Drive, and wonders about the other 70
acres and the potential congestion that would come with a zone
change.
Anthony Abeson, North Haven Subdivision, spoke against the
proposal, and noted that he was not contacted by the Waterford
Company. He is opposed to the development and did not envision
traffic, street lights, storm water retention ponds, etc. when he
purchased his home 6 years prior. Concern over the height of the
structure.
Luann Metcalf, Country Estates, concern for the need for the
facility and cost at Waterford, market research should be done, no
guarantees that the facility won't go bankrupt due to the inability
to fill the facility.
Scott Williams, 1 week in the area, concern over being annexed in
conjunction with the project which would increase the taxes and
devalue the property. His biggest concerns are traffic and density,
and that Waterford does not fit within the Master Plan of the area.
He does not want the area of his home annexed into the city, does
not want the Waterford project to go through.
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 6 of 13
Dale Luman, 169 Trail Ridge Road in Country Estates, agrees with
those previous to him. Entered a letter signed by the 7 members
of the Country Estates Homeowners Association in opposition to
the proposal. Main topics were visual impact, and that the zoning
request is marginal in compliance and this facility would be best
located in a different area.
No one else spoke against the project and applications.
BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg asked Billmayer about conditions 6 and 9, and it was
explained that the Waterford project wants a traffic study a fair
prorate of the financial burden to the 4 Mile Drive improvements.
Wants the city to pay their fair share of the improvements.
Mann asked about the height regulations and Wilson explained
that the height limit in that Zoning district is 35 feet. The 44 feet
as proposed does not include the chimneys, so there would be 9
feet over the current zone regulations. It was noted that the Board
should look at this under a Planned Unit Development, and
therefore there is more flexibility for uses, and height, and should
look at this very specific development, and make
recommendations about the project specifically.
When asked Staff explained that the numbers on density
marginally comply with master plan, and the impact associated
with this type of plan are in reasonable compliance with the plan.
Stevens liked the project, believes the problems could be solved by
gating the roadway. Understands opposition, but feels this is a
good project. Believes that the board can rely on the public works
department to deal with the drainage problem.
Heinecke spoke in support of the project, believing the cluster
development does mitigate the increase in density, and believes it
will help the lower subdivisions on storm water drainage rather
than causing more problems, and noted # 14 on the landscaping
issues. On the fire issue he believes that the fire suppression
system within the building would mitigate the possibility of fire
being an issue.
Brenneman is not in favor of the proposed project as he sees it as
failing to meet 6 of the criteria as submitted and in light of the
community opposition.
Brenneman moved to adopt staff reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD-
99-1 as findings of fact and recommend that the Zone R-4 and
RA-1 and PUD overlay be denied. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 7 of 13
The Board went over the conditions and made amendments as
follows, based on the public input and the requests of the
Waterford Company and staff recommendations:
#2 The extension of all services and facilities be done in
accordance with plans approved by the Kalispell Public Works
Department.
#6 include `and the City of Kalispell'; `and source of traffic
generation and that appropriate share of cost and upgrade be
determined prior to construction'; and delete `Montana
Department of Transportation'.
#8 Change to: That the proposed new roadway be private and
gated to use as an emergency access route only with sole access
from 4 Mile Drive, and upon completion be signed in accordance
with City standards.
#9 Include `and that a prorated cost be shared based on the
results of the traffic study and agreed upon by all parties
identified'.
# 14 Change to: 'The park area designated as the courtyard on the
site plan be developed which provides amenities such as tables,
walkways, landscaping and trees.
MOTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff reports #KA-99-
1 and #KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned
R-4 and RA-1 with a Planned Unit Development overlay, subject to
the conditions as amended. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Jean
Johnson, Don Hines, Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, Don Garber
and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Joe Brenneman voted No. The
motion passed on a 7-1 vote.
5 minute break at 10:38 and resumed 10:45.
UWICORE ANNEXATION Request by John & Brenda Vincent for annexation and initial
& ZONE CHANGE, zoning of 2.6 acres located on the north side of California Street
CONDITIONAL. USE AND between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz gave a thorough presentation of staff reports #KA-99-2,
#KCU-99-1, and #KPP-99-1. The staff recommends that the
Kalispell City -County Planning board and Zoning Commission
adopt the staff report and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
to adopt P-1 zoning on the land proposed for dedication as a city
park and R-3, single family, with 7000 square foot minimum lot
size, zoning on the remainder of the site, as described in Exhibit
B. In addition, he recommended approval of the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat to allow 10 condominium units to be
constructed on the site. Jentz noted however, that parking was
deficient as 25 spaces were required, but only 18 met zoning
standards. He stated that to meet the staff conditions the site
Kalispell city County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 8 of 13
WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD VALLEY
FRDO STAFF REPORT KA-99-1
FRDO STAFF REPORT #KPUD-99-1
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for annexation, initial zoning and PUD project. A public hearing has
been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for February 9, 1999
beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will
forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Petitioner and Owners:
Technical Assistance:
Joseph A. Billig, Agent for
The Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC
5150 SW Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 646-5186
Billmayer Engineering
2191 Third Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406)-257-8708
B. Nature of the Request: The applicants are requesting annexation into the city of
Kalispell and initial zoning of R-4, Two Family Residential, and RA-1, Low Density
Apartment Residential, for approximately 22.91 acres. In addition they have
submitted an application for a planned unit development PUD for the purpose of
developing a 292 unit senior housing facility.
Currently, the property is located in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned
SAG-10, a Suburban Agricultural zoning district with a ten acre minimum lot size
requirement for newly created lots. This property is on the urban fringes of
Kalispell with City water and sewer in close proximity. Extension of City services
to the site are required. A request for annexation has been submitted which
proposes R-4 zoning on approximately 11.48 acres along the eastern portion of
the property where 12 duplexes and one triplex are proposed. RA-1 zoning is
proposed on the remaining approximately 11.43 acres where the main facility
would be located which would contain 268 residential units.
Three phases are proposed for the development of the project which would
include portions of each type of housing being provided, i.e. congregate units
within the main facility and cottages. The facility is intended to accommodate
phases of later life from fully independent living to full nursing and Alzheimer's
care. The total square footage for the main facility would be approximately
297,647 square feet -with each of the cottage units containing between 1,330 and
1,500 square feet with double car garages. A total of 65 parking spaces are
proposed to be provided in an underground parking garage. and 145 parking
spaces on grade. All of the parking would be constructed during Phases I and H.
Phase I would include three stories within the main building which would include
87 congregate units and 16 assisted living units. It would also include four
duplexes and one triplex east of the main building for a total of 103 units in the
main building and 11 cottages. Phase I would have a total of 114 units. Phase H
would include three stories in the main building to the north which would contain
58 congregate units as well as one and two stories in the main building to the
south that would have 16 assisted living units, 12 special care units and 16
Alzheimer's units. It would also include eight duplex units on the eastern
perimeter of the site for a total of 102 units within the main building and 16
cottages. Phase II would have a total of 118 units. Phase III would include 32
congregate units 12 special care units and 16 Alzheimer's units all within the
main building. Phase II would have a total of 60 units. All phases once complete
would have a total of 292 units.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property: This property is located on the
south side of Four Mile Drive approximately a half of a mile west of Highway 93.
A small part of the southwest corner of the new City ballfields lies immediately to
the north of this property. The properties proposed for the PUD and annexation
can be described as Assessor's Tract 1 and a portion of 1CA in Government Lot 3,
Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Currently this property is undeveloped and has
been used in the past for agricultural purposes. It lies within the County's West
Side Zoning District and is zoned SAG-10, a suburban agricultural zoning
designation which has a minimum lot size requirement of ten acres of newly
created parcels. This properties lies on the urban fringes of Kalispell.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: Most of the adjoining property in the area is
agricultural with some single family residential to the southeast.
North: Agricultural and new City ballfields, City P-1 and
County AG-80 zoning
South: Agricultural and residential, County SAG-10 and R-2 zoning
East:: Agricultural, SAG-10 zoning
West: Agricultural and residential, County SAG-10 and R-2 zoning
F. General Land Use Character: The area can be described as a transition area from
the more urban, more densely populated area to the south which rely on urban
services to the rural agricultural area to the north typified by large agricultural
tracts and ranchette type parcels.
G. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
— Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Telephone:
Cen.uryTel
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
H. Relation to Zoning Requirements: The applicants are proposing an underlying
zoning of RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, on approximately 11.43 acres
and R-4, Two Family Residential on approximately 11.48 acres upon annexation
into the city. In addition, they are proposing a PUD overlay. The PUD provision
in the Kalispell zoning regulations is intended to "provide a zoning district
classification which may provide flexibility of architectural design and mixing of
land uses while preserving and enhancing the integrity and environmental values
of an area."
The PUD would allow all of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses listed
in the R-4 and RA-1 zoning districts. The primary deviation rom the development
standards is in the area of the RA-1 zoning where the main family is proposed and
it relates to height limits. The developers have chosen the PUD process to avoid
2
having to apply for a variance to the height limits of this zone.
The overall density within the R-4 zoning district is two dwelling units per 6,000
square feet excluding roadways and in the RA-1 zoning district is 6,000 square
feet for the first dwelling plus an additional 3,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling. It appears (without an actual break down of roadway areas) that the
proposal is in compliance with the R-4 area of the project. Without having actual
square footages listed in the application which are devoted to driving lanes and
common parking areas, that the project within the RA-1 zoning area is in
marginal compliance with regard to density.
The R-4 zoning designation has a height limit of 30 feet. All of the proposed
dwellings within this area will be single story and comply with the height limit.
The RA-1 zoning designation has a height limit of 35 feet. Portions of the main
facility exceed the height limits of the district with most of the main building at 50
feet and portions of the main building roof line at 56 feet in height.
The R-4 zoning district allows single family residences and duplexes as permitted
uses. One triplex deviates from the uses allowed in R-4. In RA-1, the zoning
allows single family residences and duplexes as permitted uses and multi -family
dwellings as conditionally permitted uses. The PUD application is intended to
allow some deviation from zoning requirements in exchange for exception design
which mitigates impacts and preserves or enhances the natural environment.
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED R-4 AND RA-1 ZONING AND PUD OVERLAY
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. and
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Findings of fact for the zone change request are
discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A and Section
27.30.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The Kalispell City -County Master Plan map designates this property as urban
residential which anticipates approximately two to eight dwelling units per acre.
With the master plan update in process, it warrants examining master plan
proposal as well for this area. The proposed master plan also designates this- area
as urban residential which anticipates from two to twelve dwelling units per acre.
The gross acreage for the proposed project is 22.91 acres. There are 292 units
being proposed. This translates into 12.74 dwelling unit per acre. Under the
proposed master plan densities, this proposal would be in substantial compliance
with the density ratios. Under the existing master plan, the proposal would
exceed the anticipated density ratios by approximately 108 dwelling units. It is
questionable whether or not this proposal complies with the urban residential
master plan designation. Questionable because this is not typical multi -family
housing and because this facility is specialized in its. nature. However, it is also
questionable because the height, number and size of the building is more akin to
a high density residential project that an urban residential project which
anticipates mostly single family and duplex homes.
Typically a project of this nature would be anticipated closer to the central core
area of Kalispell rather than on the urban fringes. However, the size and density
of the facility requires raw acreage that might not be available closer to the urban
core.
3
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
Primary access to the site will be provided from Four Mile Drive which will have
direct access from Highway 93. Four Mile Drive is currently a gravel road for
most of its length and should be upgraded to accommodate this development
should it be approved. Additional traffic onto Four Mile Drive as a result of this
development would exceed its carrying capacity for which it is currently intended.
Four Mile Drive is currently owned and maintained by the County. However, it
should be anticipated that if this property is annexed and the roadway upgraded
to City standards, it should also be annexed into the city. of Kalispell and
maintained by the City. With the necessary and appropriate upgrades from a
gravel road to a City street, it appears that the requested zone change may not
produce traffic in excess of that which the roadway network has an ability to
handle.
A new street is proposed approximately 1,440 feet long which accesses from Four
Mile Drive at the eastern portion of the property and connects with Summit Ridge
Road. A gated entry is proposed for this roadway at both the north and south
entrances to limit traffic into the facility. Limited entry is intended to provide the
residents with a sense of safety and security. However, a new roadway has -the
potential to provide a -much needed north / south connection between Four Mile
Drive and the subdivisions to the south, primarily Summit Ridge and Northridge.
A new roadway connection may change the traffic circulation patterns in the area
and overall traffic will likely increase to a moderate degree because of the new
facility. Additionally, traffic generation and circulation patterns will be affected by
the new ball -fields to the north that will open for the first time this spring. Traffic
projections were considered during the development of the ballfield site and were
anticipated to use the intersection at Four Mile Drive and Highway 93.
A new street in the area providing a north / south connection to the west may
encourage its use by traffic leaving the ball park after an event and to take a route
through the subdivisions to the south. However, the north / south connection
has great value for some traffic, heading north or south from the area. A
connector between Four Mile Drive and Three Mile Drive may be a positive
attribute for people living in the area and for service providers such as Eagle
Transit who will have other stops- in the area. Ultimately, traffic using the new
street could change existing traffic patterns in the area. With the necessary
upgrades additional traffic generated in the area would not generate traffic in the
area beyond reasonable levels.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
The annexation and rezoning of this property will result in additional high density
residential development in the area. The location of the site is approximately
three miles from the fire station, thereby creating additional responsibilities for
the fire department on the fringe areas of town. There are some risks associated
with response times because of the distant location of the site. A substation in
the area has been recognized as a need by the city council and fire department in
the past. Although the facility will be sprinklered and will minimize risk of fire by
a "built in" fire suppression system, continued development of this nature or of
another nature jeopardizes the City's ISO (fire risk) rating.
Fire hydrants will need to be located within the development which may require a
loop water system within the development to provide adequate fire flows in the
area. At this time it is unclear exactly what the requirements for this would
entail, but it is safe to speculate that some upgrades to existing water mains in
4
the area may be necessary.
There are no City stormdrains in this area. Stormwater has been a problem in the
area particularly for properties to the south. There are natural drainage patterns
in the area which are currently not functioning well during large storms. Any
additional flows into the area cannot be tolerated by the system. There is heavy
flooding at times that takes place between Four Mile and T Mile Drives. A
drainage plan for the site will need to be engineered in accordance with plans
approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department utilizing on -site retention
methods.
Additionally, during an emergency situation, access to the facility may be
compromised if the roadway were allowed to be gated. This is not an overly
complex issue, but could create additional risks to residents of the facility if
response time are delayed because roadway accessed is blocked. Overall, access
to the site has the potential to be good, but there are certain issues relating to the
location of the facility and potential delay in emergency and fire response times.
Handling of stormwater runoff also has the potential to create significant
problems in the area. If these issues are adequately addressed, public health and
safety may not be compromised.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
Waterford of Flathead Valley provides a unique approach to providing housing for
an aging population. In filling this niche within the community and beyond, this
facility may promote the general health and welfare of the public. There are
issues associated with the density of the facility and its location on the urban
fringes of the community. There are also important issues relating to Kalispell's
fire risk rating, stormwater runoff in the area and visual impacts because of the
height and mass of the main structure and its location on a very visible knoll. All
of these elements combined create concerns for the general health and welfare of
the community and how it develops.
S. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
This proposal deviates from the zoning regulations with regard to the proposed
height limit of a major portion of the overall development. The height limit of the
RA-1 zoning district is limited to 35 feet. The proposed facility is three stories in
height and has an average height of approximately 50 feet with some of the
architectural embellishments on the roof extending it in some areas to 56 feet at
the maximum point. With the height and bulk of this facility being located in an
area of mostly two story single family homes, the potential visual impacts
associated with the building could be quite substantial. No specific elevation
drawings were included with the application at the time of writing this report.
Perimeter landscaping treatment should be incorporated into the site to attempt
to mitigate visual impacts. Landscaping and buffering should be accomplished
through berming, landscaping, fencing and other treatments which accomplish
the goal of integrating the massive building into the surrounding area.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration
of people?
This proposal is for 292 dwelling units. However, this proposal would not be
typical housing with regard to the types of residents and public services they
require. The proposed density exceed what would be anticipated under the urban
residential land use designation and it lies on the farthest urban fringes of
Kalispell. Availability of public water and sewer to the site will have to be
accommodated through the upgrading of existing lines. The sewer collection
system and its capacity has not been fully assessed to determine whether or not it
is adequate to carry the additional flows through the system to the treatment
plant.
Potential traffic impacts associated with the development of this site will be
required to be reviewed by the Montana Department of Transportation which
would deal primarily with impacts from Four Mile Drive onto Highway 93. This
may require a new approach permit and potentially appropriate mitigation
measures.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
New infrastructure will be required to be extended to the site as it relates to
water, sewer and roads. New streets, whether public or private, should be
constructed to City standards. Additionally, fire hydrants and adequate
emergency access will be required to be addressed. Fire and police services will be
required to serve the site in the northern urban fringes of the city. The location of
this development in relation to the City fire department poses serious concerns
regarding the City's ISO rating and response times to the site. It appears that
adequate provision of public services can be provided.
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
It is questionable whether or not adequate consideration has been given to the
particular suitability of this site for this facility. The visual impacts associated
with the size, height and bulk of the facility will be substantial because of its
proximity on the knoll which also sits higher than any other property in the area.
Although it may provide for a good view of the mountains and valley to the
residents of the facility, it will be highly visible from the surrounding areas
including the subdivisions, Highway 93 and from the west. There are no other
residential buildings and very few if any commercial buildings in Kalispell which
are as tall or massive as the one being proposed, which exacerbates concerns
about its proposed location. In addition, most of the other residential
development in the area is single family residential. Agricultural activities
continue to the north, west and south. It does not appear that the -zone change
gives adequate consideration to the particular suitability of the site for the
proposed use.
9. Does the requested zone Five reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The character of the area is primarily single family residential and agricultural.
There are no multifamily developments in the immediate area and no
developments in the planning jurisdiction that are as large or as tall. As a
transition area from urban to rural, it would be anticipated that this area would
develop in a manner more consistent with other residential development in the
area, i.e. single family and duplex housing. _It does not appear that the zone
change gives reasonable consideration to the character of the area.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
It is undetermined what the impact of this development might be on the value of
other buildings in the area. It would appear that such a facility, because it is
residential in nature and will be generally well -maintained by the corporation,
would likely have an insignificant impact on the value of buildings in the area.
C�
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the jurisdiction?
Because this rezoning request is marginal in its compliance with the urban
residential master plan designation and because of the topographical
characteristics of the site, it does not appear that this would encourage the most
appropriate use of land for this site, but more particularly for the planning
jurisdiction. It would be hoped that a facility such as this would locate closer to
the core area of Kalispell and its associated shopping, restaurants and other
services.
EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Project Narrative: The Waterford of Flathead Valley described itself as a Continuing
Care Retirement Community which is intended to provide for the needs of elderly from
the active stages of retirement through advanced stages of Alzheimer's within a safe
secure environment. Waterford has several facilities in the Pacific Northwest with one in
Helena and Butte although not as large as the one proposed in Kalispell.
The Waterford Kalispell facility is proposed to be a three phase project to be developed
over a period of about three to six years depending on their occupancy level. The three
story 50 foot tall building will house the main facility and contain a total square footage
of approximately 270,000 square feet. At full build out the main facility will include 193
congregate living units (modest apartments), 16 assisted living units, 24 special care
units, 32 Alzheimer's units and a health and fitness area. Parking will be provided with
an underground parking area and around the facility. In addition to the main facility, 12
duplex units (24 dwellings) and one triplex unit (three dwellings) are proposed near the
eastern portion of the site. The duplex and triplex units will have double car garages
attached to the dwellings. A 28 foot wide roadway which will be constructed to City
standards will provide additional on -street parking. Total area of the site is
approximately 22.91 acres.
All of units including the congregate living units, duplex and triplex units would be
occupied under a life tenancy agreement between Waterford and the residents with the
resident subject to an agreement which outlines the general terms and conditions of
occupancy. Services include some housekeeping services and grounds maintenance,
but does not entitle the tenant to a vested interest in real estate or company assets.
There are provisions within the agreement for relocation within the Waterford facility if
higher levels of service or care are needed. It does not appear that this type of
arrangement would be subject to subdivision review since no title of property is made
nor can the units be sold on the open market, but only back to the corporation. If it is
determined that this arrangement requires subdivision review, this could be placed as a
condition of approval for the project.
Parking is proposed to be provided in an underground parking facility and in various
areas around the site and exceeds that which would be required under the zoning
regulations. Some landscaping is indicated on the site plan, but a full landscape plan
was not been submitted with the application. Full elevation drawings were not
submitted with the application.
Primary access to the facility will be from Four Mile Drive which is currently a County
gravel road. Staff would recommend that Four Mile Drive be upgraded to City standards
including curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalk which connects to the City's pedestrian
trail proposed for the north side of the street. A crossing can be coordinated with the
parks and recreation department. Pedestrian access to the ball park will be an
important recreational element of the project. It should be noted that the City of
7
Kalispell's Extension of Services Plan requires that water, sewer and roads serving a
development be extended to the furthest property boundary to anticipate future
development in the area. This means Four Mile Drive should be extended to the west to
the "top of the hill." Because of the steep grade other alternatives should be considered
among the County, the City and the Department of State Lands that owns the property
to the north.
Access within the facility will be provided by way of an internal road system that appears
to have full curb and gutter and sidewalks throughout the facility. A proposed private
roadway is proposed on the eastern portion of the site which will connect Four Mile
Drive with Summit Ridge Drive. Staff would recommend that this roadway be open to
the public to provide a north / south connection between Four Mile Drive and areas to
the south. In any event, the street should be built to City standards so that at some
point in the future if the duplex area were to be severed and sold as a separate parcel,
the City would be in a position to assume maintenance and ownership of the roadway.
An approach permit from the County will be required for the new street.
The PUD process would essentially eliminate the need for a conditional use permit or
variances since the related impacts are intended to be addressed under this process,
including the public hearing and the ability of the public to make comment on the site
plan and mitigation strategies.
Section 27.21.020(2) outlines the review criteria to be considered by the planning board
for a PUD. The criteria is as follows:
1. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations
otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to
density, bulk and use, and the reasons why such departures are or are not
deemed to be in the public interest.
As previously mentioned, there is a deviation from the zoning with regard to the
placement of a triplex unit in the area designated as R-4, a Two Family Residential
zoning district which does not allow multi -family dwellings. There is a deviation from
the zoning with regard to the height allowing in the area designated as RA-1, a Low
Density Residential Apartment district which has a height limit of 35 feet. As proposed
the roof line for the main facility is 50 feet in most areas with some areas having a height
of 56 feet. The uses in the main facility, i.e. assisted living, nursing care and more
intensive patient care are all uses permitted within the RA-1 zoning district. It appears
that the applicants chose the PUD process for reviewing this project to avoid multiple
reviews, but also because the excessive height limit would not be a good prospect for a
variance. Variances should only be granted when some unique and peculiar aspect of
the property limits the reasonable use of the property and results in undue hardship.
It could be offered that the departures from zoning serve the public interest because of
the need for the facility within the community. However, staff has serious reservations
about the precedent which may be set in this situation with the use of the PUD
mechanism to avoid compliance with the height limit of the district. It does not appear
that this project or the details submitted with the proposal meet the intent outlined in
the zoning regulations for the use of a PUD which is to "provide flexibility of
architectural design and mixing of land uses while preserving and enhancing the integrity
and environmental values of an area." It does not appear that consideration has been
given to protecting the environmental values of the area particularly values associated
with scenic vistas, views, ridgeiine development and the character of the area. It does
not appear that the site of this facility was done in such as manner as to preserve or
enhance the environmental values or integrity of the area.
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
8
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;
Open space is defined in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as "Any part of a lot
unobstructed from the ground upward. Any area used for parking or maneuvering of
automotive vehicles or storage of equipment or refuse shall not be deemes open space."
No formal park or open space areas have been indicated on the site plan. Some
landscaped areas have been indicated on the site plan. The entire facility including the
operation and maintenance of the facility, its grounds and open space areas will be
managed and maintained by the corporation.
A developed park area somewhere on part of site seems lacking particularly considering
the nature of the facility the fact that many of the tenants within the facility will be in
good health and able to enjoy outdoor facilities. Tenants who are in less that good
health may not be able to take a short walk to the ball park to the north. Additionally,
the adjoining ball park is not meant to function in this manner. Additional information
regarding landscaping, buffering and placement of street trees should be required.
Kalispell's Street Tree Ordinance requires spacing of trees at 40 foot intervals with a two
and a half inch caliper tree. This should serve as a guideline when developing the
landscaping for the site. All trees should be a minimum of two inch caliper at planting.
All of the parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and landscape areas will be held in common
and will be maintained by Waterford. -
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;
The extension of public water and sewer to the site is proposed as part of this
development. It has yet to be determined what the necessary improvements to the water
`and sewer mains in the area will be required. An upgrade to Four Mile Drive will also be
necessary to provide primary access to the facility which should include curb and gutter,
landscape boulevard and sidewalk that connects to the City's pedestrian trail. Some on -
site park area should be developed as an amenity for the facility. It does not appear that
the applicants have made adequate provisions for mitigation of the visual impacts
associated with the height of the building or the massive size of the structure. These
elements will tend to reduce the scenic values of -the area, conflict with the basic single
family character of the area and jeopardize the visual enjoyment of residents.
The developers will be required to assess the existing infrastructure and to make
adequate provisions for the upgrades necessary to serve the facility with regard to water,
sewer and roadways. At this time there is not enough information in the application to
adequately analyze the impact on the City sewer collection system in general and the
City's ability to meet the needs of the development. Stormwater drainage is intended to
be handled on site as there is no public storm drain sewers in the area. Historic flow on
the site an in the area may present great challenges in engineering a system that retains
all stormwater on site particular considering the topography of the site and the proposed
location of the stormwater retention basin indicated on the site plan. However, no
detailed plan for handling drainage has been submitted with the application.
Traffic is proposed to be handled by developing roadways within the development. One
internal roadway provides circulation around the building and to employee parking lots
at the rear of the building. A new road which will connect between Four Mile Drive and
Summit Ridge Drive with access taken from Four Mile near the eastern portion of the
site. This road is proposed to be gated to prevent through traffic and to provide security
to the residents. Staff recommends that this roadway be constructed to City standards
will curb, gutter, boulevard, street trees and sidewalks. The Montana Department of
Transportation may require a new permit for Four Mile Drive depending on the traffic
Q
impacts associated with the development.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
It is unclear exactly what the impacts of this project would be on the neighborhood in
the area. The scale of the structure along with the associated lighting, traffic and
stormwater drainage impacts could significantly effect the character of the area and
create adverse impacts to the neighborhood due to increased traffic from the site and the
creation of stormwater flows in the area. Additionally, this is currently a rather rural
area of the community which will be significantly changed with a facility of this
magnitude. However, some of these issues can be mitigated with adequate landscaping,
buffering, careful lighting and adequately engineered plans.
S. 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;
This development is proposed to occur in three phases. Phase I would include building
portions of the main facility and the duplex units. Phases II and III would continue
depending on the occupancy rates. However, it appears that it would be necessary to
install all of the required infrastructure to serve the facility prior to the initiation of
Phases II and II. The zoning regulations require that bonding or other appropriate
collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be, satisfactorily completed in
accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule. In previous
approval of Buffalo Commons planned unit development, the city council required that
all of the required improvements be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit.
No collateral or bonding was proposed with this application.
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.
Summar4: The planning board should forward a recommendation to the city council
which may be a recommendation for approval in whole or in part, with or without
modifications, or recommend disapproval. The zoning regulations require that once the
plan is approved by the council the applicant shall submit a final plan in accordance
with the approval of the city council which incorporates any conditions which may be
imposed by the council. The final plan as approved, together with the conditions and
restrictions imposed, shall constitute the zoning for the district.
* . ,cvft �
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt FRDO staff report #KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend to
the Kalispell City Council that the upon annexation the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1
with a PUD overlay subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with
application submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the
city council
2. That the extension of all services and facilities be done in accordance with the City
of Kalispell's Extension of Services plan dated November 6, 1995.
10
3. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department.
4. That the fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department.
S. That the necessary easements be obtained for the extension of water and sewer
services to the site.
6. That the developer assess the need for a traffic impact study with the Public Works
Department to identify expected traffic impacts and that appropriate approach
permits be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation and Flathead
County Road Department.
7. That the proposed new roadway connecting between Four Mile Drive and Summit
Ridge Drive be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and
Construction Standards for local streets, and that upon completion, the road be
certified by a certified engineer licensed in Montana that the road has been so
constructed.
8. That the proposed new roadway be dedicated to the City of Kalispell upon
completion and that it be open for public use.
9. That Four Mile Drive be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's
Design and Construction Standards for local streets and that, upon completion, the
road be certified by an engineer licensed in Montana that that road has been so
constructed.
10. Street trees shall placed within the landscape boulevard for the proposed new road
and be spaced at a minimum of 50 foot interval and shall be a minimum of a two
inch caliper at planting.
11. That the proposed new road shall be named and signed in accordance with the City
of Kalispell standards.
12. That a sidewalk or pedestrian path be constructed which provides a continuous
walkway from the facility to the ball park to the north and that a location for a
crossing connecting with the City's proposed pedestrian path be coordinated with
the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department.
13. That a landscape plan shall be submitted which provides landscaping around the
perimeter of the site, at the entrance and throughout the parking lots which shall
be submitted to the Flathead Regional Development Office for review and approval
prior to construction.
14. That a useable park area be developed within the site which provides amenities
such as tables, walkways landscaping and trees.
15. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes parking lot lighting fixtures which
do not exceed 15 feet in height and using shielded lenses which are not visible from
beyond the property boundaries. Low level pedestrian and landscape lighting shall
be approved. No uplighting of the facility shall be permitted or other lighting which
create dispersed lighting around the facility or lighting which will create intrusive
impacts in the area. Sensitivity to the type and level of lighting necessary to
achieve security but not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose shall be
used. A lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Flathead Regional
Development Office prior to construction.
11
16. That the use of retaining walls in excess of four feet tali be avoided, but rather the
implementation of landscaped terracing be used to make the transition in the areas
requiring this type of work.
17. That a sign plan shall be submitted to the Kalispell Zoning Administrator which
complies with the zoning regulations for the district in which it is located. The sign
shall be externally lit, made of natural colors and materials and which utilizes an
integrated architectural design compatible with the facility.
18. That the units within 'the facility shall not be deeded as real estate or as
condominium units without first obtaining subdivision approval from the Kalispell
City Council.
19. That the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding
for the proposed infrastructure and improvement or other acceptable means of
insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by
the developer.
20. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based
on terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
H\... \KA\98\KPUD99-1
12
h
BILLMAYER ENGINEERING
Mr. Stephen Kountz January 11, 1999
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Fifth Avenue East #414
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Waterford of the Flathead Valley, Zone Change/Planned Unit Development, Annexation to City of Kalispell
Dear Mr. Kountz:
The following are submitted for your review and presentation to the Planning Board and the City of Kalispell.
1. Petition for zoning amendment, City of Kalispell (original and two copies).
APPLICAT!dN 11.tAL
2. Review Fees — Waterford Development
A. Ck # 409261 - S400.00 — P.U.D. Review a {
B. Ck # 409289 - $515.00 — Zone Change `
JAN 1 1 7999
3. Proposed Master Planning Site Plans �.
A. Waterford Development — S-1 1-7-99 (16 copies)'j'i
B. Billmayer Engineering — 1/1 1-&99 (16 copies)
C. Zoning Map - 1/1 1-6-99 ( 3 copies) F. R. D. O.
D. Reduced Scale (Master Plan) - ( 3 copies)
4. Petition for Annexation to City of Kalispell (original and two copies)
5. Consent to Annex Agreement and Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District (original and two copies)
6. Waterford Residence and Services Agreement E-I ( Example for Kalispell — three copies)
No covenants are proposed but Resident's Rights and Responsibilities Set Standards of Operation.
7. The Waterford, Preferred Retirement Community Information. (16 Packets)
8. List of Adjoining Land Owners (Three Copies)
9. Title Report (Commitment for Title Insurance) (original and two copies)
This information is submitted with the intention of being presented at the February Planning Board Meeting.
Any additional information you may require will receive our prompt attention.
Respectfully Submitted:
BILLMAYER ENGINEERING
�r r
. Ja Billmayer, P.E.
2191 Third Avenue East • Kalispell, Montana 59901 • (406) 257.8708 - FAX (406) 257-8710
BILLMAYER ENGINEERING
January 15, 1999
Mr. Steve Kountz
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Fifth Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
RE: Waterford of the Flathead Valley
Dear Mr. Kountz:
APPLIGAT;; '
F. R. "3
In response to your letter of January 13, 1999 requesting clarification and additional
information relating to the submitted zone chanae/PUD for the above development, we
offer the following:
1. The followins table presents the phasing dates, units available and estimated
employees per shift.
Phase
Start Construction
Units
Emplovees/Shift
Phase I —
July, 1999
114
12
Phase 2
July, 2001
232
16
Phase 3
July, 2003
290
18
2. The draft agreement required in Section 27.21.030(5)(g), contemplates multiple
ownership within the PUD in this development. The sole owner and therefor
responsible party is Waterford of the Flathead Valley, LLC. Since it would not be
practical for an entity to contract with itself, we felt this section does not apply.
3. As you know, the PUD approval will require the project construction to conform to
the approved concept. The submittal shows elevation views that exhibit the character
of the development, including general landscaping, structural height, roof profile, etc.
Other projects of this nature such as Buffalo Hill Terrace are constructed three stories
or more on a prominent hill in North Kalispell. This concept differs little from these
precedents.
2191 Third Avenue East • Kalispell, Montana 59901 • (406) 257.8708 • FAX (406) 257-8710
a
4. The Waterford offers the security of a gated community. Your desire to open the
connection road between Four Mile Drive and Summit Ridge Drive to public access
will destroy that security for may of the duplex occupants. The existing traffic
pattern for the area will remain unaffected by the proposal. Future extension of
Summit Ridge Drive is provided for.
Please call if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
BiLLMAYER ENGINEERING
qi.a may err.
F
Bank
January 11, 1999
naa unv awc omen
Trust Division
Kalispeil Office
2 Main Street
RO. Box 7130
Kalisoell. MT 59904-0130
406-756-5212
1-800-328-4524
Fax:406-756-5264
Internet E-Mail: fib4firstinterstatebank.com
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5`h Ave. East Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT, FLATHEAD COUNTY
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is a Petition for Zoning Amendment in Flathead County
along with a Petition for Annexation to City and Consent to
Annex Agreement and Notice of. Withdrawal from Rural Fire
District.
The Petition for Zoning Amendment is intentionally left blank.
It is our understanding the proposed buyer of this property
from the current owner will provide the information required on
this form. . It is also our understanding the current owner is
required to sign this form to signify willingness and agreement
to a zoning amendment and/or annexation to the city.
Please be advised t:.a= all owners have signed each document in
accordance with our ur-derstanding as outlined in the previous
paragraph.
Any questions may be directed to First -Interstate Bank as Co -
Trustee of the three separate J. Austin Miller Trusts (FBO Mark
S. Miller; FBO Sharon Kay Larson and FBO Barbara A. Miller).
Sincerely,
Sandra Berkimer
Vice President and
Trust Officer
Encl: (3)
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Sei Ave. East Room 414
Kalispell, MT S9901
Phone: (406)7S8-5980 Fa2c (406)758-S781
PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT
CITY OF KALISPELL
Joseph A. Billig, Agent for
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: The Waterford of the Flathead Valley, LLC
2. MAIL ADDRESS: 5150 SW Griffith Drive
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Beaverton, OR. 97005 PHONE: 503-646-5186
4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY:Owner
S. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: N A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: N/A
r :r • y• r �, r • . ,r 061 • :r • :r
• �� - r • - - • err• :r • • .r r�
A. What is the proposed Zoning text amendment? ,
.C�LiCA T' CN :M.- -
NIA
- JAN
F. R. C.
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Address of the property: Pending / Four Mile Drive
B. Legal Description: SPA attarbpd
(Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #)
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
C. The present zoning of the above property is: SAG-10
D. The proposed zoning of the above property is: RA-1, R4, within a PUD
E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed
amendment necessary:
Annexation to City, development of PUD
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED CELARGE ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSJ
A. Promoting the Master Plan The project is consistent with the
Master Plan's call for urban residential rlaaainnment
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access The Waterford
will provide a minimal amount of traffic. The scope of the Proiect
includes owner improvements to Four Mile Drive, which has been upgraded
to Highway 93.
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers The Proiect site will
consist of two entry points and a loop road which will provide
access to all parts of the buildings. The main building will have a full
sprinkler system and state-of-the-art nurse call and fire alarm.
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare Health and Safety issues are a priority for Seniors living
in communities such as the Waterford. The location was chosen for its
easy access to Highway 93 and its improvements to Four Mile Drive.
E. Preventing the overcrowding of land The building footprints of this
community cover approximately 17% of the land. Softscape for the project
is around 60%.
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population The need for senior services
is found in the surrounding community. This project will allow
expansion of the population by expanding the growth boundary,
in accordance with the Master Plan.
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities
contribute to the City's tax
Communities such as the Waterford
base, without burdening Schools, the
Waterford Provides bus service for its residents, so there is minimal
traffic impact. Plans include enhancements to the water and sewer
systems, and a park for residents is provided on -site.
2
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district Waterford
communities are consistent in their residential feel. The architecture
to the main building echoes the single -story duplexes, which provide a
transition to the surrounding neighborhood.
I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular
uses The property is situated in an area which will provide wonderful
views for future residents and easy access to Highway 93. The
Waterford is in accordance with the Master Plan.
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings Communities' values are
enhanced by the quality of architecture found at the Waterford.
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
Our proposed Master Plan will be built in phases assuring orderly
growth in harmony with the available land.
The signing of this application signifies approval for F.RD.O. staff to be present on
the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process.
(Applicant)
1/1,1q, - -
(Date)
3
APPLICATION PROCESS
APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING APPLICATIONS:
A. Pre -Application Meeting:
A discussion with the Planning Director or designated member of staff must
precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: Master
Plan compatibility with the application, compatibility of proposed zone change
with surrounding zoning classifications, and the application procedure.
B. Completed application form.
C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Flathead Regional
Development Office.
Fee Schedule
Zone Change:
Basefee........................................................................$400.00
For first 80 acres of area of the request.................Add $5/acre
For requests for 81 - 160 acres.............................Add $3/acre
For requests covering 161 acres or more .............. Add $1 / acre
Amendment to Zoning Text......................................................$300.00
PUD Zoning Review:
Residential....................................................................$400.00
Commercial...................................................................$500.00
MixedUse.....................................................................$650.00
D. The application must be accepted as complete by the FRDO staff thirty (301
days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard in order that
requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled.
APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS FOR ZONE CHANGE:
A. Application Contents:
1. Petition for zone change signed by at least 50% of the property owners in
the area for which the change in zoning classification is sought.
2. A map showing the location and boundaries of the property.
3. A list of the names and mail addresses of all property owners within 150
feet of the subject property as shown on the Assessor's roll.
Example
Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract Property Owner
No. No. and Mail Address
4. A title report of the subject property.
0
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district
I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular
uses
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. staff to be present on
the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process.
)ZI J" /a-i7-2-
(Applicant) Hollister Larson (Date)
First Interstate Bank, Co -Trustee of the J. Austin Miller Trust FBO Sharon Stevens-
Wulf,iFBO Barbara Miller and FBO Mark Miller.
Sandra Berkimer Vice President/Trust Officer
BY: Kirk Fulford,"I't-ust Officer
L. Pe r
Tru F
an Ei
Peter
-1 7- %'91
Date
is-/7- 9�
Date
rson and Dan Eigeman, Individuals as Co -Trustees of the J. Austin Miller
Sharon Stevens -Wulf, FBO Barbara Miller and FBO Mark Miller.
n, Co -Trustee
3
Date
/c -/ -9y
Date
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY FOR WATERFORD OF THE FLATHEAD VALLEY
County Tract 1 in Government Lot 3 of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, M.P.M.,
Flathead County, Montana, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 1; thence
South a distance of 30 feet to the point of beginning; thence
South 00 40' West, along said subdivision line, a distance of 784.7 feet to a point; thence
West a distance of 1033 feet to a point; thence
North 00 21' East a distance of 785 feet, more or less, to.the South boundary of the County Road;
thence
Easterly along the South boundary of said County Road, to the point of beginning.
AND
The East 200 feet of the North 737 feet of Tract 1 CA lying and being in the Northwest Quarter of
Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana, described as
follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the tract described above; thence
West, along the South boundary of the tract described above, a distance of 200 feet; thence
South along a line parallel to the Quarter Section Line, a distance of 737 feet; thence
East along a line parallel to the South boundary of the tract described above, a distance of 200
feet to the Quarter Section line; thence
North along the Quarter Section Line, a distance of 737 feet to the point of beginning.
Combined total land area of both parcels is approximately 22.0 acres.
_ _ _TION NO.
BEFORE THE CITY COUNC:L
OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL
PET: -:ON FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY
COME NOW the *.ndersigned and respectfully petition the City
Council of the City cf Kalispell requesting city annexation of the
following real property into the City of Kalispell and to remove the
following real property from the WrsT (/ALC E Rural Fire
District.
The petitioner(s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the
property described herein hereby mutually agree with the City of
Kalispell that immediately upon annexation of the land all City of
Kalispell municipal services will be provided to the property
described herein on substantially the same basis and in the same
manner as such services are provided or made available within the rest
of the municipality prior to annexation. Petitioner(s) hereby state
that there is no need to prepare a Municipal P= nexation Service Plan
for this annexation pursuant to Section 7-2-4E10, M.C.A. since the
parties are in agreement as to the provision, of municipal services to
the property requested to be annexed.
Dated this L_ day of��rui
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED:
SEE ATTACHED
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PARTY(S)&OEREST
By:1.0�-✓
Hollister Larson, Owner of 50% Undivided Interest
First Interstate Bank as Co -Trustee for J. Austin Miller
Trust FBC Sharon Stevens -Wulf, FBO Barbara Miller, FBO
Mark Viller, Owner of '.0%•Und' ed Interest
BY
Vice P esident & Trust Officer
BY:
Kirk Fulford, Tru Officer
Individuals as for stin Miller Trust FBO
Shar _ 'ler, FBO Mark Miller
BY: -
L. ler i on, Co -Trustee
BY: lci Lyrsls�L
DanrEige:Ian, P-Trustee
ATTACHI ENT TO
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY
Legal Description
That parcel of land located in the N.W. ;-* of Section 1, T28N,
R22W, P.M.M.
As further described below:
A Tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1,
Township 28 North, Range 22 West, principal Meridian, Montana,
Flathead County, Montana and more particularly described as
follows:
TRACT 2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNE
R OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE S00'56'20"W, ON AND ALONG THE EAST
BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOe 56'20"W, ON AND ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY,
A DISTANCE OF 640.12 FEET TO A SET 5/8' RE -BAR AND WHICH POINT
LIES ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF NORTH HAVEN HEIGHTS 2"D ADDITION;
THENCE ON AND ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST BOUNDARIES OF SAID NORTH
HAVEN HEIGHTS 2 ADDITION AND ON AND ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF NORTH HAVEN HEIGHTS 1ST ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING SIX
(6) COURSES:
N89° 40'18"W,
A DISTANCE OF 0.58
FEET
TO
A
FOUND
3/8"
RE -BAR;
S010 05"26"W,
A
DISTANCE
OF 236.69
FEET
TO
A
FOUND
3/8"
RE -BAR;
SOO' 53'24"W,
A
DISTANCE
OF 99.89
FEET
TO
A
FOUND
3/8"
RE -BAR;
SOO*57'57"W,
A
DISTANCE
OF 99.97
FEET
TO
A
FOUND
3/8"
RE -BAR;
SOO* 57' 45"W,
A
DISTANCE
OF 236.50
FEET
TO
A
FOUND
3/8"
RE -BAR;
N85'43'06"E,
A
DISTANCE
OF 1.17 FEET TO
A
FOUND 5/8" RE -BAR AND
WHICH POINT
IS
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUMMIT RIDGE
NUMBER
1
SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ON AND ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SUMMIT RIDGE
NUMBER 1 SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES:
S00057'48"W, A DISTANCE OF 140.93 FEET TO A FOUND 5/8" RE -BAR;
SOe 02'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 70.55 FEET TO A SET 5/8" RE -BAR;
THENCE N89042'17"W,M AND LEAVING SAID WEST BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE
OF 199.73 FEET TO A SET 5/8" RE -BAR; THENCE N00,56'20^E, AND
PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A
DISTANCE OF 737.00 FEET TO A SET 5/8" RE -BAR; THENCE N890
42'17"W, AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 833.20 FEET TO A SET 5/8" RE -BAR; THENCE
N00°39'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 260.23 FEET TO A FOUND 5/8" RE -BAR;
THENCE N00038'45""W, A DISTANCE OF 527.30 FEET TO A FOUND 5/8"
RE -BAR AND WHICH POINT LIES ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY
OF FOUR MILE DRIVE; THENCE S8? 42'17"E, ON AND ALONG SAID SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 1043.13 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
THIS TRACT CONTAINS 22.170 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER
WITH ALL APPURTENANT EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
CONSENT TO ANNXX AGREEMENT
A
u NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
RURAL FIRE DISTRICT...
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
TH S AGREEMENT, made and entered•into_this- (,/ 7 i
Day of 1999 , by and between FirInterstate Bank, L. Pete
hereinafter PARTY(S) OF INTEREST (INCLUDES OWNER(S), LIENHOLDERS(S), OR
CONTRACT SELLER(S)) and the CITY OF KALISPELL, Flathead County, Montana,
hereafter CITY, WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and/or other good and
valuable consideration to us in hand paid, and certain,proaises;- mutual
terms, covenants, provisions, conditions and agreements, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the PARTY(S) OF',INTEREST, do(es)
hereby consent to, and hereby do waive any and all right'to protest, which we
may. have or hereafter acquire in regard thereto, any attempt .or proceedings
made or to be made by or with the consent of the -City of Kalispell,.Montana,
to annex to and make - a part of said City.of Kalispell, more particularly
described- on! Exhibit "A" attached hereto and which, by this reference, is
made a part hereof:
The PARTY(S)`OF INTEREST do(es)'further herein express"an intent to .have the
property as herein described withdrawn from the We-51' (/A[.t. ' Fire
District under the provisions of Section 7-33-2127, Montana Code Annotated;
and that incorporated into ?.this Consent to Annex Agreement is the Notice
requirement pursuant to said Section; -.and that upon proper adoption of an
ordinance -or resolution of ,annexation by the City Council of the City of
Kalispell,-t}ie property shall be detracted from said district.
THE PART(S) OF INTEREST further agree(s) that this covenant shall run
to, with, and be binding upon the title of the said real property, and shall
be binding upon our heirs, assigns, successors in interest, purchasers, and
any and all subsequent holders or owners of the above described property.
This City hereby agrees to allow PARTY(S) OF INTEREST to hook onto the
City of Kalispell sewer system.
IN TESTIMONYr AND WITNESS-. WHEREOF we have hereunto set,.our;, hands and
`affixed our , seals this./ % �L day of 1}a twin•-�iL�
Hollister Lar n, Owner of 50% Undivided Interest
_ First, Interstate Bank as Co -Trustee for J. Austin
Miller Trust FBO Sharon Stevens -Wulf, FBO Barbara
Miller, FBO Mark Miller, Owner of 50% Undivided
Int t -
BY
San r`alBe kimer,ttv'ce Pr ident and Trust Officer
KirkTFul'{ord, TruA Officer
Individuals "as * Co-T stee f - J. Austin Miller Trust
FBO Sharon St f, arbara Miller, FBO Mark
Miile
BY:
ete r on, Co -Trustee
BY:
Dan Eig n, Co-T ustee
CITY OF KALISPELL
City Manager
ATTEST:
WATERFORD ON ELIZABETH WARREN Eml
RESIDENCE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
EOUITY SHARING PLAN FOR THE COTTAGES
Home Number Scheduled Move In Date
Resident Name Date of Birth
Second Resident Name Date of Birth
Resident SSN Second Resident SSN
Plan Fee S Resident Monthly Service Fee $
Change Orders Second Resident Monthly Service Fee
Other Meal Plan
Other Garage: Location No.
Total Amount Due $
Installment #1 < >
Installment #2 < >
Installment #3 < >
Balance Due $ Total Monthly Service Fees $
Monthly Fee Prorated from to is $
The parties (the 'Parts') to this Residence and Services Agreement (the'Agreement7 are:
(the 'Resident') and
(the 'Second Residentl,
(collectively, the 'Resident'), and the Waterford on Elizabeth Warren, an Oregon Urrnited Liability Company, ('Waterford'),
which owns and operates the Waterford on Elizabeth Warren ('Waterford'), a Retirement Community in Bute, Montana,
whose business address is 3701 Elizabeth Warren, Butte, MT 59701.
In exchange for the Resident's payments in the amount shown above, and the Resident's payment of the ongoing monthly
service fee, initially in the amount shown above, the Resident shall be entitled to occupy the Home identified above, and to
receive, use and enjoy the services and facilities of the Waterford described in this Agreement all in accordance with this
Agreement and the General Terms And Conditions attached to and made a part of this Agreement for the Resident's life or
until earlier termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Resident(s) and the Waterford on Elizabeth Warren
have signed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below.
Resident's Signature Date Second Resident's Signature Date
Waterford on Elizabeth Warren Date
rWa'e,.r6i'='S3JE-'.va^e+' 3:.'e.Mi, 40649t-e9Cf01.,kt?}21.194E.HW84lSRESADOC.F'JrG:r+liCallhQCwly Page 1 of E=1
®� Waterford on Elizabeth warren
General Terms And Conditions
Attached to and made a part of the Residence and Services Agreement - Equity Sharing Plan for the Cottages
MONTHLY FEE AND SERVICES Each month the Resident shall
pay the total monthly service fee (the 'monthly service fee')
specified in this Agreement. The monthly service fee will be
prorated on a daily basis for the first and last months of residence,
as appropriate. The monthly service fee is due in advance for each
month, or portion thereof, in .which the Resident or any of
Residents personal property occupies the Home. Prior to the end
of each month, the Resident wig be billed for any optional service
fees incurred by the Resident through the 25th day of that month.
These amounts, together with the monthly service fee, are due on
the first day of each calendar month. If the optional service fees
and the monthly service fee, or any portion thereof, are not paid by
the frith day of the month by 5:00 p.m., the Resident will be
assessed a late fee of 5% of the amounts due. One and one -haft
percent interest (1 o V2%) per month will be billed on any Maid
balance. Ail payments shall be made payable to the Waterford
Each. person designated as a Resident herein shag be jointly and
severally liable for the payment of the sums due hereunder.
2 PLAN FEE Payment of the Plan Fee entitles the Resident the
occupancy of the hone and receiving priority placement ahead of
non -Residents on waiting lists for the Waterford services available
at the present or in the future and various health care services as
outlined in the Resident Manual.
In the event the resident vacates the Waterford for any reason
within the first 60 days of occupancy, 90% of the net proceeds from
a resale is refundable. Thereafter, 75% of the net proceeds from
the resale less the cost to resell the home is refundable.
The refundable amount is payable 30 days after the Waterford
receives all funds from a replacement contract for the Home with a
new resident No interest shall be payable by the Waterford for the
use of the Plan Fee. A refund of any portion of the Plan Fee upon
Residents vacation is conditioned upon payment by the Resident
of all sums payable by the Resident under this Agreement, and
satisfaction by the Resident of each of the obligations set forth
Herein. Payment by the Resident of the Plan Fee is riot intended in
any way to limit the Waterford's rights or the Residents obligations
hereunder.
If, for any reason, the Resident does not make the agreed
payments due during the construction period, the Resident wig be
refunded 75% of the amounts' paid, less selling costs that is
payable 30 days after the Waterford receives all funds from a
replacement contract with a new Resident
maintain all community areas, and the exterior of the Home
and other buildings at the Waterford.
(c) Utilities The Waterford shall provide water, sewer and trash
removal and pay the property taxes and building insurance.
The Resident shalt provide electricity and gas, telephone,
home supplies, replacements and all food The Home shall be
wired for telephone and cable service. The monthly telephone
and cable charges are additional and are the responsibility of
the Resident other than as provided in the Resident Manual.
(d) Dinina Meals may be purchased utilizing the various meal
plans available and as provided in the Resident Manual. Food
may be purchased separately in all diriing rooms by the
Resident and the Residenrs guests.
(e) Parking Every home has attached parking at no additional
charge. Additional surface parking may be available to the
Resident and the Resident's guests.
(f) Additional Services Additional services are available and will
be billed in accordance with the Optional Services Fee
Schedule.
4. CHANGE IN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS The Waterford reserves
the right to approve each and every Resident occupying the Home.
If only one Resident has signed this Agreement, the Resident may
bring one additional individual into the Home who meets the
qualifications for residency at the Waterford, as determined by
Waterford. Whenever any Resident proposes to add or drop
Second Resident, written notice shag be given to the Waterforo.
Any proposed Second Resident shag complete the Application for
Residency, and shall be approved in advance of moving in.
5. LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE The Waterford will recommend
a long term care insurance company for each Resident through a
third party insurance policy. The Resident is responsible for
satisfying the underwriting requirements and for paying the
appropriate rate for the insurance desired. The Waterford reserves
the right, upon 60 days prior written notice, to change insurance
companies and modify the coverage and benefits provided in the
policy. Residents who are enrolled in an insurance program and
Residents who are rot enrolled in an insurance program agree to
pay for all goods and services received under the terms of this
Agreement and to indemnity, defend and hold the Waterford
harmless from any costs, claims or liabiiities arising by reason of
any claim of inadequacy of the insurance policy or lack of
insurance.
3. NORMAL AND ROUTINE SERVICES Services vary according to
the area of residence as outlined in the Resident Manual. Except 6.
as otherwise specifically set fain, the following services shall be
provided to the Resident without additional charge:
(a) Light Housekeeping Services The Waterford shall provide
light housekeeping of the Hone which shag consist of clear
floors, walls, plumbing fixtures, and trash removal.. The health
care areas include additional housekeeping as described in the
Resident Manual The Resident may request optional services,
e.g. towel and then exchange, and laundry services, for an
additional charge.
(b) Maintenance The Waterford shall provide routine and normal
service and repairs for all electrical and mechanical appliances
and equipment provided by the Waterford. Waterford shall
ENTRY Resident agrees that the Waterford may enter the Home
from time to time and without notice ii order to provide
housekeeping and other necessary or agreed services or repairs,
and in the -event of emergency or suspected emergency, or
abandonmertt. Except in the case of emergency or when
impracticable to do so, the Waterford shalt give the Resident 24
hours notice of intent to enter; and shall enter only at reasonable
tines. Resident shall not unreasonably withhold, delay or condition
consent to the Waterford to enter the Home. Resident agrees to
allow the State and Federal Inspectors to enter the home as may
be requested.
INVENTORY AND CONDITION CHECKLIST The Resident shall
inspect the Home prior to the Residents taking possession and the
Resident shad note any and all conditions such as stains, marks,
Resident(s) Waterford
rwaterfe^ on E tzaoen Warre^ a e..VT 406-a9"?rv: uv < '?S? H weVTRESAOOC Fw CcnfxWtW Use Cwi Page 2 of
Waterford on Elizabeth Wanes '®1
General Terms And Conditions
Attached to and made a part of the Residence and Servicw Agreement • Equity Sharing Plan for the Cottages
holes, acceptance of appliances, etc. on the Inventory and
Condition Checklist provided by the Waterford. The Resident shaA
sign and date the Checklist, and shall be provided a copy.
8. RESIDENT OBLI!ATiONS UPON VACATING Upon vacating for
any reason, the resident shah remove all of Residents personal
property from the Home, and restore the Hone to its condition at
the commence,-ient of this Agreement and the condition necessary
to resell the ho. ie, less normal wear and tear.
Upon Residents vacation, The Waterford shall perform minor
caning of the Home, including cleaning of carpets, drapes and
blinds. In the event heavy cleaning is necessary due to the
Residents use of the Home (e.g. due to smoking, or incontinence),
the cost shall be the responsibility of the Resident, and shall be
paid by the Resident to the Waterford upon notice. The Resident
shalt pay the cost to repair to the Waterford's satisfaction any
damage to the Home, fumishings or appliances, less normal wear
and tear, or to replace any missing appliances or other items
provided to the Resident during the tenancy. Notwithstanding any
other provision contained herein, the Waterford reserves the right
to deduct the cost of heavy clean, damage or replacement from
any amounts held by the Waterford under the terms of this
Agreement, or collect additional monies if the amounts held by the
Waterford are not adequate to cover all the casts.
9. MONTHLY SERVICE FEE ADJUSTMENT The monthly service
fee is based on the costs if operation and from time to time rates
may be increased or decreased. The Resident will be notified in
writing at least 30 days prior to the effective date of any
adjustment
10. USE AND OCCUPANCY OF RESIDENCE AND GUESTS The
Resident agrees to maintain the Home in a clean and orderly
manner. The Resident shall not make any holes or drive any nails
into the woodwork, floors, walls, or ceilings of the Home or the
improvements or fixtures therein without the prior written consent of
the Waterford. The Resident may place picture -hanging nails in
the walls without the Waterford's prior consent. The Resident
agrees not to paint, wallpaper, or otherwise decorate the Home, or
make any alterations, modifications, or additions therein, eluding
but not limited to walls, closets, fixtures, locks, or wiring, without
the Waterford's prior written consent Any approved alteration shall
be performed at the Residents sole expense by the Waterford
personnel or by a contractor approved in writing in advance by the
Waterford. The Home shall be used and occupied by the Resident
as a private residence only, and shall not be used for commercial
imposes. Pets are not allowed unless approved in advance by the
Waterford.
Occupancy of the Home and use of the Waterford is limited to the
Resident and Guests. The Resident is responsible for the conduct
of each Guest and for payment of any charges incurred or damage
caused by each Guest. Separate guests rooms are available for
an additional charge at the published daily fee on a space available
basis.
11. LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY The Resident
agrees that all of the Residents personal property in the Home or
elsewhere on the premises of the Waterford shall be maintained at
the sole risk of the Resident, and that the Resident will carry such
personal property and other insurance as the Resident deems
necessary.
The Waterford shall not be responsible for, and the Resident
hereby releases the Waterford from all chums; for, the loss or
damage to the Residents property due to theft, fire, water,
vandalism, or any fitter cause,including but not limited to the
negligence or acts of other residents, guests, or other persons on
the property. The Resident shall indemnity, protect and hold the
Waterford harmless for any loss, damage, injury or expense
incurred by the Resident as a result of careless, negligent or willful
acts of the Resident or Residents guest(s) or irnrftees. Further, the
Resident shall be responsible for any loss, damage, injury or
expense incurred by the Waterford or other residents, guests, or
other persons on the property which are the result of careless.
negligent or willful ads, Including improper use of appliances,
plumbing fixtures, etc., of the Resident or Residents guest(s) or
invitees.
12 REMOVAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY The Resident agrees
that in the event of Residents death or other termination of this
Agreement that the Waterford shall be authorized to remove any of
the Residents personal property remaining in the home after 30
days and to store the same at Residents expense, or that of
Residents estate for up to one year to perm the hone to be
refurbished for use by another resident In the event that
Residents personal property remains uncWmed in storage in
excess of one year, it may be sold by the Waterford, and the
proceeds, after deductions for expenses, credited to amounts due
from the Resident
13. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF
EFAULT in the absence of default, this Agreement may be
terminated by the Resident by giving 30 days written notice. Such
notice must be given in the manner set forth herein. The Resident
shall surrender and leave the Home no later than the date specified
in the written notice. Resident shall perform each of the obligations
set forth herein, with respect to Residents vacation of the Home.
The Waterford wilt begin marketing the home as soon as written
notice to terminate is received.
14. DEFAULT A default occurs whenever the Resident fails to pay the
monthly service fee or other monetary sum due by the date it is
due, or fails to observe any duty of the Resident contained herein,
in any Rules and Regulations (Resident Manual) adopted by the
Waterford, or otherwise provided by law. in the event of default by
the Resident, the Waterford may terminate this Agreement and
deduct from any refundable portion of the Plan Fee as sums due
hereunder which remain unpaid 30 days after the due date.
15. RESIDENT MANUAL (Rules And Regulations) The Waterford
reserves the right to adopt and revise the Rules and Regulations
for the general health and safety of the Resident, the safety, care,
and cleanliness of the Waterford, the preservation of good order
therein, or as may otherwise be appropriate. The Resident has
received a copy of the Resident Manual and agrees to comply at all
tunes with the Rules and Regulations (Resident Manual) now in
effect or hereafter adopted by the Waterford.
1& AGE RESTRICTION At least one person 55 years of age or older
must reside in the Home (subject to certain exceptions). Each
Resident represents that the date of birth shown for that Resident
is correct in the event two Residents occupy the Home, and one
permanently vacates the Home for any reason leaving a Resident
who is under 55 years of age, the Waterford reserves the right to
terminate this Agreement.
Residents) Waterford
S Watert;rr y c:�aCe" 'Y.;^en &.^.e M.T. 4C6- 94- XC kjk 7 '9?N H W?VTRESA DOC. For Can kW1-1V Ilse Only Page 3 of 4
E=1 Waterford on Elizabeth Warren
Genera! Terms And Conditions
Attached to and made a part of the Residence and Services Agreement - Equity Sharing Plan for the Cottages
17. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE The Waterford may terminate this
Agreement for cause by giving 30 days written notice to the
Resident Good and sufficient cause for termination of this
Agreement by the Waterford shall include but not be limited to the
following.
(a) Conduct by the Resident .that constitutes a danger to the
Resident or others;
b) Material misstatements or failure to state a material fact in the
Application, financial statements, or in any health statements
filed with the Waterford.
c) Repeated conduct that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of
ttte Waterford by other residents;
d) Inability or persistent refusal to comply with any rule or
regulation adopted by the Waterford
(e) Resident's health status exceeds criteria for the area in which
residing and Resident does not obtain appropriate care.
18. ALTERNATE CARE In the event Resident's health status exceed
afteria for the area in which residing or Resident's actions pose a
danger to self or other, Resident agrees immediately upon notice
by the Waterford to:
(a) Relocate to alternate placement andlor
(b) Assume financial responsibility for designated home health
care to supplement current services to meet resident's needs.
19. SEVERABiLITY Should any one or more of the provisions of this
Agreement be determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable
in any respect, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
20. MEDIATION i ATTORNEYS' FEES in the event any dispute
arises between the Waterford and the Resident relating to the
interpretation, enforcement, or performance of this Agreement, the
Parties agree to submit the dispute to mediation. In the event of a
dispute, whether referred to mediation or otherwise, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to collect from the other party such amount
as the court or arbitrator may adjudge reasonable as attorneys'
fees and expenses.
21. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the State where the Waterford is
located and Federal laws. The F :sident and the Waterford
admwfedge and agree that this agreement is predominantly an
agreement for services and that the Resident has chosen to reside
at the Waterford to secure the services and facilities of the
Waterford
22. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement and the use, occupancy and
possession of the home are non assignable, non transferrable and
shaft terminate automatically, subject to the obligations of this
Agreement, upon the Resident(s) vacating the home. The home is
not to be leased or sold to others by the Resident without prior
written approval by the Waterford.
23. SUBORDINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement and the
Resident's rights hereunder are and shall remain subordinate, and
inferior to any liens or encumbrances on the property, indtding all
real estate mortgages, trust deeds, and other financing instruments
and agreements, the interest payable on any such liens or
encumbrances, and any and all renewals or extensions thereof.
24. RESIDENT'S INTEREST By virtue of this Agreement, the
Resident shati not have any proprietary or real estate interest in the
Waterford, or in the assets of Waterford or its properties.
M SUCCESSORS Subject to the limitations on assignment specified
herein, this Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and
assigns, t*irs, executors, and personal representatives of the
Parties.
26. NOTICE Any notices required in accordance with any of the
provisions herein, 810 the Waterford, or the Resident, shaft be
delivered in person or mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
27. WAIVER Failure of the Wate W at any time to require
performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute
any waiver of, nor timit the Waterford's right to enforce such
provision in th ie future.
2& SOLE AGREEMENT 1 AMENDMENT This Agreement, together
with the:
(a) Application for Residency
(b) Inventory and Condition Cheddis#
(c) Current Resident !manual (Rules and Regulations) and
(d) Any separate agreements specifically referenced herein:
.(e)
M
shall constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, superseding all prior negotiations,
discussions, writings, and agreements between the Parties. No
part of the Agreement may be amended or modified in any respect
except by an instrument in writing signed by the Waterford and the
Resident. The Waterford reserves the right to enter into Residency
Agreements with other individuals residing at the Waterford which
may contain terms dillerent from those set forth in this Agreement
Notwithstanding any such different terms in other Residency
Agreements, Resident agrees that this Agreement alone sets forth
Residents rights and obligations to the Waterford with respect to
the Waterford
29. EXPRESS CONDITIONS The Resident understands that the
terms and conditions set forth above are express conditions of this
Residency Agreement without which the Waterford would not be
willing to enter into this Agreement The Resident acknowledges
that the Resident has read, understands, and will comply with each
of the provisions of this Agreement
Please sign the front page and initial the other pages as provided.
Resident(s) Waterford
Ewattrtc on E¢ax� 'rhrren. 8uae. WT, K6-4;a_: r 4.% z- '99e. !+ %NSY--RESaDOC. For CantgenM L�Se Cny. Page = t
FRDO
Z-98
CERTIFICATION
APPLICANT• WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD VALLEY
FRDO FII.E #• KPUD-99-1 and KA-99-1
I, the undersigned certify that I did this date mail a copy of the attached notice to the
Mowing list of landowners within 150 feet of the property lines of the property
that is the subject of the application. lj C z-
Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract
No. No.
SEE ATTACHED LIST
Date:
Property Owner
& flail Address
APPLICANT
a
JOSEPH A BILLIG
THE WATERFORD OF THE FLATHEAD VALLEY
5150 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE-
BEAVERTON OR 97005
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
BILLMAYER ENGINEERING
2191 THIRD AVENUE EAST
KALISPELL MT 59901
Property Owners within 150 '
Assesses
Tract #s No. Owners and Mailina Address
_ - 28 - 22
Tract 13AA 05-0974810 Joseph Guy Schletz
in N�NWY4 600 Four Mile Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Tract 1D 05-0063950 Mary R. Dern
in W-N/. 214A Farview Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Tract 4 05-0902590 Mitzi Cline
in Lot 2 6603 South Prescott Way
Littleton, CO 80120-3048
Summit t Ridge #1
Lot
9/31ock 3
75-0968450
Douglas &
Luann Servo
424 Summit
Circle
Kalispell,
MT 59901
Lot
10/21ock 3
75-0968451
John J. &
Cindy M. Foot
428 Summit
Ridge Drive
Kalispell,
MT 59901
Lot
II/Block 3
75-0968452
John_ R. &
Kelly S. Thies
434 Summit
Ridge Drive
Kalispell,
MT 59901
Lot
12/2_ock 3
75-0968413
Roger D. &
Susan_ A. Bowman.
440 Summi-
Ridge Drive
Kalispell,
MT 59901
Lot
5/21ock 4
75-0968457
Carol Ann
Burtt
429 Summit
Ridge Drive
Kalispell,
Mt 59901
Lot
6/Block 4
75-0963458
James B. &
Laura Jo Smithwick-Hann
435 Summit
Ridge Drive
Kalispell,
MT 59901
North Haven Heights 1st Addition
Lot 4 05-0947890 Charles J. & Lorraine S. Wingard
117 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 5990i
Lot 5 05-0742120 Tommy R. & Teruko Rogers
119 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, Mt 59901
Lot 6 05-0741840 Gary R. & Gloria E. Marin
121 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Assessors
Trac- #s No. Cwners and Mailing Address
North Haven Heights 2nd Addition
Lot 19 05-0411361 Anthony G. & Vicki L. Ih=-Lscn
123 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Lot 20 05-0951177 Steven E. Fauerso
125 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Lot 21 05-0597975 D. R. & Gisela Morton
127 North Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
36 - 29 - 21
S%SWY4 & SW%SE% State of Montana
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 1999, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Cou-:cil
Chambers, Kalispell City Hall, 312 First Avenue East. Kalispell. During this regularly scheduied
meeting, the board will hold public hearings or take public comments on the following agenda
items and will make recommendations to the City Council or the Board of County Commissioners.
who will take final action:
A petition by Andrew Farris for a zoning map amendment in the Flathead County Zoning
Regulations from SAG-10 Suburban Agricultural on approximately 15.7 acres and R-1
Suburban Residential on approximately 2.2 acres to R-3 One Family Residential on the
entire site. The proposed R-3 zoning would provide for single-family residential lots with
minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet (approximately I/. acre). The amendment would
increase the allowable density on the site from 3 lots to roughly 69 lots (assuming 10% of the
site would be used for roads). The property is located in the Evergreen Zoning District on the
north side of East Reserve Dr. The legal description is attached in Exhibit A.
2. A petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC, for annexation to
the City of Kalispell and a zoning map amendment and planned unit development on 22.91
acres. The location is on the south side of Four Mile Dr. approximately 0.4 mile west of
Highway 93. The existing zoning on the site is SAG-10 Suburban Agricultural in the
Flathead County Zoning Regulations, setting minimum lot size at ten acres. The proposed
zoning in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance is RA-1 Low Density Residential Apartment on
11.48 acres and R-4 Residential on the remainder, as well as a PUD Planned Unit
Development overlay zoning district on the entire site. The application proposes a senior
housing complex in three phases with 12 residential duplexes, one triplex, and a three-story
building with 268 residential units and total floor area of 297,647 square feet. The height of
the apartment building would be 50 feet with two towers up to 56 feet, proposing to exceed
the maximum building height of 35 feet in the I district. The apartment building would
include congregate units, assisted units, special care units, and alzheimer units. A new
street is proposed to extend from Four Mile Dr. to Summit Ridge Dr. The proposed
landscape area for the project is 13.68 acres. The legal description of the site is in Exhibit B.
3. A petition by Unicore Development Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent, for
annexation to the City of Kalispell and a zoning map amendment on approximately 2.6
acres. The location is on the north side of California St. between 5th and 6th Av. E.N. The
existing zoning for the site in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations is R-1 Suburban
Residential, setting minimum lot size at limiting lot size to one acre. The proposed zoning in
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance is R-3 Residential, reducing minimum lot size to 7,000
square feet. The legal. description of the site is in Exhibit C. See also items 4 and 5.
4. A petition by Unicore Development Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent, for a
conditional use permit to construct 10 cluster development dwellings consisting of two
condominium fourplexes and a condominium duplex. The location is on the north side of
California St. between 51h and 61h Av. E.N. The site plan proposes a new private street to
access the units and a 0.8=9-acre park to be dedicated to the City as an addition to
Lawrence Park. The legal description of the site is in Exhibit C. See also items 3 and S.
5. A petition by Unicore Development Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent, for
preliminary plat approval of a 10-unit condominium subdivision on approximately 2.6 acres.
The location is on the north side of California St. between 5�h and 6,h Av. E.N. The legal
description of the site is in Exhibit C. See also items 3 and 4.
6. A request by Todd and Davar. Gardner for preliminary plat approval of the Amended Plat'of
Lot 1, Ashley Business Park. The two -lot industrial subdivision is 7 acres in size. The site is
on the west side of Highway 93 South at the intersection of the proposed Highway 93
Bypass, approximately 0.6 miles south of the 4-corners intersection. The site is in an I-lH
Light Industrial -Highway zoning district. The property is described as Lot 1 of Ashley
Business Park Subdivision, Section 29, T28N, R21 W, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana.
7. A petition by the Theodore D. Fouts Trust for a zoning map amendment in the Flathead
County Zoning Regulations from B-3 Community Business :Lnd B-2 General Business to R-5
Two Family Residential. The location is on Ridgewood Dr. just east of LaSalle Rd. in
Evergreen. The proposed R-5 zoning is an urban residential district allowing duplexes on
each lot. The property is described as Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 6 in Larson's Acres 13t
Addition and Lot 5B of Block 2 in Larson's Acres, Section 33, T29N, R21W, P.M., M.,
Flathead County, Montana
Documents pertaining to these agenda items are on file for public inspection in the Flathead
Regional Development Office, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414, Kalispell, MT 59901, and are
available for public review during regular office hours. Flathead County Zoning Regulations are
also on file for public inspection at the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Flathead County
Courthouse, Kalispell, MT, in Permanent File No. 16137.
Interested persons are encouraged to attend the hearings and make their views and concerns
known to the Board. Comments in writing may be submitted to the Flathead Regional
Development Office at the above address prior to the date of the hearing.
Thomas R. Jentz
Planning Director
�C-
m
m
m
i m
M
t
i �I
m
m
0
m
m
i!I i
0
Il�lsr> !p
r
ii -- --- ------------- ---
r-
m
I 1 1
m
I Y
Ji
�j
i .sa
ly
i
till
s aaaa
i
a
Nii
teat
aaaaa
III
!
Ch
.SS!111�
'�yis
I
�m
Icn
N
{
v�
SC1(EAtA'nC SITL ►L kN
.nwa e.ti
""•
;w-
WATER -FORD of the FLATHEAD VALLEY
-
,••_•
— -- -
mn••••-
CALMPMI, MONTA A
txnibit B
Waterford of Flathead Valley Inc. Zone Change
PROPOSED REZONING RA-1
A portion of County Tract 1 in Government Lot 3 of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22
West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 1; thence
South a distance of 30 feet to a point on the south right-of-way of the County Road; thence
Westerly along the south right -of -wad- line of the County Road a distance of 582 feet, more or
less To the True Point of Beginning of the parcel being described; thence Westerly along said
south right-of-way line of the County Road a distance of 462 feet, more or less; thence South
0° 21'West a distance of 785 feet, more or less; thence; thence East a distance of 738 feet,
more or less, to a point on the south boundary of said Tract 1, thence; North a distance of 105
feet, more or less, to the denterline of a 24' wide private road, thence; Northwesterly along said
centerline a distance of 615 feet, more or less, to a point, thence; North a distance of 80 feet,
more or less to the True Point of Beginning,
Said parcel containing approximately 11.48 acres
PROPOSED REZONING. R-4
A portion of County Tract 1 in Government Lot 3 of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22
West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 1; thence
South a distance of 30 feet to the point of beginning; thence; South 0° 40' West along said
subdivision line, a distance of 784.7 feet to a point, thence West a distance of 295 feet, more
or less to a point on the south boundary of said Tract 1, thence; North a distance of 105 feet,
more or less, to the centerline of a 24' wide private road, thence; Northwesterly along said
centerline a distance of 615 feet, more or less, to a point, thence; North a distance of 80 feet,
more or less, to a point on the south right -of way line of the County Road, thence; East along
said County Road right-of-way to the point of beginning of the parcel being described,
AND
The East 200 feet of the North 737 feet of Tract 1 CA lying and being in the Northwest Quarter
of Section 1, Towmship 28 North, Range 22 West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana,
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the tract described above; thence West, along the
South boundary of the tract described above, a distance of 200 feet; thezice South along a line
parallel to the Quarter Section Line, a distance of 737 feet; thence East along a line parallel to
the South boundary" of the tract described above, a distance of 200 feet to the Quarter Section
line; thence North along the Quarter Section Line, a distance of 737 feet to the point of
beginning.
Said parcel containing approximately 10.45 acres.
4
pmi
sue'
i
STATE OF MONTANA
eject Proper
_ ,ace 0
lam __=a-_^=- _ =sue—
AG-10
40
11817 M
19 t 17 tE 15 14 1ICA-.3 ` }�
___ S 8 9 10 it t2
LL
10 --= 6 5 4 3 2 a 8 C - t
== 4 5 6 7. 3 2; 1 .:i.. g1
20 �- t4
j __av' •3 2
19
4 3 9 10 ,1 12 iJ 14 t8 12 • "'
%� 15 18 17 -• t1'-
10
8 7 1 �.� J 9a
a. < . a 7 e 2 -*. -1 '.+' ? 8 : DCE
iG - 10 ; .r. 14 13 12 1t 2
.: t 4 3 &PALO
` �<7 :4 10 y
2 g—r
3 S9
S - J
4 t01 7 2 < P i 1A
12
2 /0 9 3 `
VI
WATERFORD OF FLATHEAD VALLEY LLC E;:;�
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE & ANNEXATION
FROM SAG-10, SUBURBAN AGRICULTURAL - WEST SIDE ZONING
TO RA-1 & R-4, RESIDENTIAL , KALISPELL ZONING DISTRICT
PURPOSE- TO ACCOMODATE A SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX
FILE# KA-99-1, KPUD-99-1 PLOP DATE:01/20/99
SCALE 1" = 500' H:\&\stte\KA99I.dwg
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) '58-5980
Fax: (406) 77 58-5781
January 26, 1999
name»
caddressl,
•address2»
caddress3x
caddress4•
*address5-
•address6»
Re: Waterford of Flathead Valley - A Senior Residential Facility
,salutations
This letter is being sent to you to solicit your input on the above referenced project.
Our office has received an application for a planned unit development on 22.91 acres
which includes a request for annexation into the city of Kalispell and a zone change.
The location is on the south side of Four Mile Drive approximately one half mile west
of Highway 93.
Existing zoning on the site is SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, and is under the
Flathead County Zoning Regulations which sets a minimum lot size at ten acres for
the property. The proposed zoning is City of Kalispell RA-1, Low Density Residential
Apartment zoning on 11.48 acres and R-4, Residential, on the remainder. This
project would be accomplished through a planned unit development or "PUD".
The application proposes a senior housing complex in three phases with 12
residential duplexes, one triplex, and a three-story building containing 268 residential
units. The height of the multi -story is proposed at 50 feet with two towers up to 56
feet. The maximum building height in the R-4 district is 30 feet and in the RA-1
district is 35 feet. The complex would include congregate units, assisted living units,
special care units, and alzheimer units. A City new street is proposed to extend from
Four Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive.
Our office will be preparing a report by February 1, 1999, to the Kalispell City County
Planning Board, who will hold a public hearing on the request on February 9, 1999.
Please submit your comments in writing or by phone prior to that date, so that they
can be incorporated into the staff report. If you have any questions, you can reach me
at 758-5980. Any comments you may have on this application are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Narda Wilson
Senior Planner
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City or Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish
Waterford of Flathead Valley
January 20, 1999
Page 2
Attachments: Application
Reduced site plan
Public hearing notice
Kalispell Fire Department
Kalispell Public Works Dept.
Kalispell Parks and Recreation Dept.
Flathead County Road Dept., Charlie Johnson
Flathead City -County Health Department
MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
DNRC, John Dahlberg
Montana Dept. Transportation - local and state
Eagle Transit
Al Thelan, Interim City Manager
P. J. Sorenson, Zoning Administrator
/AGREFS / 99/ KPUD99-
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th avenue East - Room 414
Kalispe[L Niontam 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
l
TO: Jay Billmayer
FROM: Steve Kountz
DATE: January 7, 1999
RE: Preliminary comments, Waterford of Flathead Valley
After meeting with you this morning, I would like to offer a few more preliminary
comments for your consideration in preparing the applications for Monday.
1. Applications.
• I haven't talked to Glen yet about whether subdivision approval is required. I
talked to Rich Weddle, a state land use attorney in the Local Government
Assistance Division, who thought that it would only be required for the duplex
units if private yard space is leased with those units. I'll check further with
Glen.
• As we discussed, submit an annexation petition and applications for a zone
change and planned unit development.
2. Density.
• The existing master plan designates site as urban residential for 2-8 units per
acre or 183 units maximum for the site. The proposed density is 295. The
plan is a guideline for zoning density.
• The proposed update of master plan (not yet adopted) also designates the
site as urban residential for 2-12 units per acre or 276 units maximum for the
site. The update also anticipates in urban residential areas inclusion of
multifamily housing sites of not more than 25% of the immediate urban
residential area and not more than 5 acres per site. The proposed
multifamily site appears to be about 10-12 acres and about half of the site.
• The site is not within walking distance of shopping or commercial services
(there's no Sykes around here), as high density housing is recommended to
be. The site is close, however, to the new city ballfield complex and the
hospital complex.
Providing Community Planning assistance To:
• Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City or Whitefish
3. Height.
• Maximum height in the RA-1 district is 35 feet. Proposed height is 50 feet. A
planned unit development allows flexibility in height, subject to justification.
Explain your mitigation strategy for being the tallest building on the highest
point in Kalispell. -
• Height is a major factor in local character. The 50+' high ridge increases the
visual effect of the building height, as does the massiveness of the building.
The gable roofline and modulated building mitigates the additional height. A
preferable location for additional height is the center of the city, rather than
the edge. Consider extensive tree planting around the building and larger
setbacks.
• The Fire Department may object, to insure safe ladder access to upper floors.
4. Streets. This office would recommend dedicating the access street as a City street,
to facilitate convenient circulation within the city.
5. Parking. Provide 'h space per unit for senior housing where 90% of units are
occupied by persons 60 years and older, plus one space per employee per
maximum shift. Other dwelling units that do not meet senior housing criteria require
2.5 parking spaces per unit. Parking design standards are in the zoning regulations.
6. Usable open space and pedestrian circulation.
• The master plan recommends development of multifamily areas with
adequate parklands and adjacent open space. The site design appears to
include no open space usable as park area. The central courtyard design
creates an outstanding opportunity for usable outdoor space and park
amenities, but it is filled with parking lots. Consider replacing 3/a of the -
parking in the central courtyard with usable outdoor pedestrian space and
plaza or park amenities, and move the required parking to another location.
• Provide a pedestrian trail (and potentially stairway/wheelchair ramp) to Four
Mile Drive to access the new city ballfield complex. People would walk down
to watch ball games.
• Provide a complete pedestrian circulation system.
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 nth Avenue Fast - Room 414
Kalispell. Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
January 13, 1999
Jay Billmayer FAX 257-8710
Billmayer Engineering
2191 3`d Av. E.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Waterford of Flathead Valley applications
Dear Jay,
We have received the zone change and planned unit development applications for the
Waterford of Flathead Valley development. To complete the planned unit development
application, please submit the following additional information by noon on Friday,
January 15"'.
1. To determine parking needs, estimate the number of employees per maximum shift
for each phase.
2. Submit a time schedule for phasing, per the planned unit development requirements
of the zoning regulations in section 27.21.030(5)(g).
3. Submit a draft agreement providing for a private organization with direct
responsibility for operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including
buildings, roads, snowplowing, drainage, landscaping, parks, et al., per the planned
unit development requirements in section 27.21.030(5)(g).
4. Submit an explanation of the reasons for varying the height limit from 35 to 55 feet
on the project. As discussed in my previous memo, FRDO recommends submitting
a mitigation strategy addressing the effects of the additional height on the character
of the area and fire safety.
5. Please clarify whether the access road between Four Mile Dr. and Summit Ridge Dr.
is proposed as a city or private street. As discussed earlier, FRDO recommends
that it be constructed and dedicated as a city street.
Please call if you have any questions on these items.
Sincerely,
Steve Kountz
Senior Planner
ltrs/99/waterfr2
Providing Community Planning .assistance To:
• Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Vi'hitefish
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMIMARY
Thursdav, January it, l"9
PECDD Conference Roos
ATTENDING:
Pi. Sorensen, Zoning Administrator, Chai=an
Craig Ker-man. Building Official
Steve Kountz, FRDO
Jim Hansz, Public Works Director
Darryl Byte, Plans Examiner
Orlaad Leland, Assistant Fire Chief
Mike Baker, Parks Director
Paul McGrath, Building Dept. Clerk:
The committee reviewed and discussed the `ollowing:
1. Waterford Development - a proposed '=95 unit housing development to be built off of Four
Mile Drive and accommodating only 55 and older residents. The scope of the project spans
from independent living units to assisted living units to Alzheimer's units. The sitc would
occupy 22.91 acres consisting of one triplex, 12 duplexes, and a main building consisting of
300,000 square feet. The location on the hill west of Highway 93 with a building height of
50 feet would make this the highest spot in Kalispell. The developer has similar units in
Helena, Butte. Spokane and Vancouver. Washington. Discussed were concerns about water
pressure for hydrants, etc., drainage, parks, and road upgrades. Annexation to the city would
be sought and therefore a proposed priva_ road should be designated as a city street.
2. Choke Cherry Development - A ten condo project to be built on E.Califomia Strut and
bordered on the north by a stccp slope down to the Sullwatcr slough. Annexation with a
zone designation of R-3, and a condition: l use permit for clustering would be sought. Only 2
of the 9 acres would be used with the possibility of the other seven acres going to the city
parks for some "concessions". Discussed were concerns about water and sewer, trees.
parking, and possible future development of the remaining acreage.
Cc: I D/ police
craig
fire
FRW
parks
Pi
pub wks - 2
darrvl
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY
Thursday. January Z8 IM
PECDD Conference Room
ATTENDING:
PI Sorensen, 7.oning Administrator. Chairman
Darrvi Bylc. Plans Examiner
Ted Waggener, Fire Chief
Craig Kcrzman, Building Official
The committee reviewed and discussed the following:
Narda Wilson, FRDO
Steve Kountz, FRDO
Paul McGrath, Bonding Dept. Cleric
1. South's - nothing has been decided upon as yet and everything is in the maybe and what if stage. Traffic flow
is of some concernso as not to cream: a problem in the lot as well as entering and exiting it. The setbacks issue
needs to be sc Wed. Should they be 5, 15, 20 ft.? Steve recommended rezoning the property to B-4 thereby
eliminating the setback requirements. Lick said them are no public works issues to crxtc= him except that he
wants easements established. Steve was concerned about a provision in the master plan for a major connector
road along the ranch edge of the property.
2. Jordan Laundromat - the only real cnncems here are drainage and fire lanes.. Dick did not think drainage
would be of any consequence since only a small area would go from gravel to pavement and therefore,
continue as is. The fin Department did not see any problem as long as the access remains fin. Final site
approval may be given by P1 alter receipt of an agreement from the Outlaw Inn for use of their system and a
set of drawings incorporating the change.
3. Chokecherry Project - Steve says the parking plan will rut work and that the developers
should he told ro comply with the zoning requirements or drop it. Also of concern is the isuw
of till dirt. Steve recommended a gentcch survey of the wil to verify its condition. An engi-
rxered foundataun is also a possibility. vice does sot want an 8" sewer main extending onto private property
and therefore wants each unit to have separate service lines extending to the main. Project may require a second
Qrr hydrant to comply with the lire code and the Eire chief. Snow storage and mail box location are yet to be
resolved. The fine Department requested that the pinking area be considered a driveway rather than a lane.
4. Waterford Development - Building height is still of tune. Ted says fie protection is of little concern
since tort suppressiun is built into the building, design, such as sprinkling. Alat is ofeoncetn is the 2'h mile
distance term the fire station. Drainage and water col-lection are still issues. The developer wants to avoid a
subdivision classification and wants a PL'D strictly because of the height issue. Will a PL'D for this project set
a precedent? Other concerns included gating, streets, usable park space, exterior building siding materials and
the plan to use prefabricated structures manufactured in Canaria and assembled in Kalispell by out of town
labor.
pm
cc:14/ police Craig
fire FR )O
Pub P1
pub wks - 2 dory I
January 28, 1999
L :.L: Y ..
FEB - 11999
FLATHEAD ReGIC"As.
VEYBUOAM OFFICG
F.R.D.O.
Narda Wilson
723 5`' Ave E. Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Mrs. Wilson:
1 own a home at 412 Summit Ridge Drive, Kalispell. As you are aware the Waterford
Development Corp. plans on building a retirement community near my residence. While it would
be my personal preference that this land never be developed, I realize that is an unrealistic
dream. I do, however, have a realistic concern over the amount of traffic this facility will generate.
If this traffic is allowed to use an entrance off Summit Ridge they most surely will use it as it will
be a shorter route for anyone coming from the south, which would generally be the case. 1
understand the need to have an emergency exit from the P.U_D. other than the currently
proposed 4 Mile entrance. However, various gated options could be placed at the Summit Ridge
point that would accomplish emergency access as well as ensuring general traffic enter and exit
via the main 4 Mile Drive entrance.
My wife and I have two sons, ages 1 and 3, who while generally staying in our yard are prone,
like many of the children who five in the neighborhood, to chase a ball into the street, splash in
mud puddles, or engage in various other activities that thoughtlessly place them in the street at
times. There is a school bus stop on Summit Ridge were numerous children congregate.
Summit Ridge is not a street designed for the commercial traffic that surely will be necessary to
support a development the size and complexity of Waterford. Additionally should that road be
open to through traffic it surely will be a short cut for people traveling to and from the ball fields. A
significant traffic problem is already present at selected times associated with the Christian
Center. I would hate to see a tragic accident occur. I ask you to act in the best interests of our
children, the residents of Summit Ridge, as well as the developers of Waterford and allow an
emergency ag_ ted access only to the Waterford Development off Summit Ridge Drive.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Davi
CC: Mark C Fisher
Waterford Development Co.
Nonmma
- r
February 3, 1999
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5t' Ave East — Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Subject: Waterford of Flathead Valley — A Senior Residential Facility
We have reviewed the proposed Waterford of Flathead Valley Development
which was sent to the Montana Department of Transportation Land Section —
Right -of -Way Bureau. Because this development will have minimal additional
impact on US 93, we have no comments at this time.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this planned development.
/Sandra S. Straehl,'
Program & Policy Analysis Bureau
Transportation Planning Division
cc: James Weaver, P.E., Missoula District Administrator
Steve Herzog. P.E., Area Maintenance Chief — Kalispell
Patricia Saindon, Transportation Planning Division Administrator
Dan Martin, Systems Impact Planner
FEB - 51999
SWWATERFORD.doc
fV►TNEAO KSO! NAL ,,v,,ti OPdlgit'r 0
r ca+ v.r-a.:. = ao••»•• 7u �+ ��+�. ��n. - r:r�rw'tic aFJb � -'1 b�cb 1''.�11'hi
Fax Cover Sheet
DATE: February 2, 1999
TO: Narda YYison FAX-758-5781
"ispell City-Cour►ty Planning Board
FROM: Carol Blatt FAX: 406-751-6326
PHONE: 406-759-7674 (Direct Line)
RE: waterford of Flathead Valley Annexation
Number of pages inctuding this cover sheet: 5
As you can see by the attached petitions, many of us in the Northridge community are
opposed to the construction of a continuing care retirement facility as proposed by The
Waterford Group and to the opening of a new street linking Summit Ridge Drive to Four
Mile Drive.
Most of us just became aware of the scope of this project a week ago and with the
Planning Board meeting set to discuss it on February 9199, we haven't been given much
time to make our position known. However, we are hoping that this is not a "done deal '
and that the Planning Board will give some weight to our petitions and hear our concerns
on February 9.
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the petition by Joseph Billig,
Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, for annexation
to the City of Kalispell for the construction of a Continuing Cars Retirement
Community on approximately 22 acres between Four Mile Road and Summit
Ridge Drive.
NAME ADt?RESS PHONE NBX SIGNATURE
� rri. �,,1Zi"r' -9a9 �rr,Ut�� as7--9399 �? Q. tSvtt�-'
? t 4
96
1s
20
Page #
- -__ _. PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the petition by Joseph Billig,
Agent for The Waterford of Fhdhead Valley, LLC, for annexation
to the City of Kalispell foe the construction of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community on approximately 22 acres between Four Mite Road and Summit
Ridkjo Drive.
NAM - ADDRESS PHONE NBR. SIGNATURE
30L r v E' S / N9 &E o A/ o + K ► R s ? �= n/ R _ ? i Y 13
i
i
is
16
17
is
19
20
Page X o2
0
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the opening of a new street proposed
to extend from Four Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive as Incorporated in the
petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NSR SIGNATURE
.au A. 6tl it' �/.19 .fl��►,r,f��6d' ds7�Si� � Q. l�ctf�
2 ,:��.!�$
^ts a •3c�
9 Ni /r11e� 1 W ���Sox- Ito 5� ,� x :T J1 •'�y �- 23"2- 3yy 3 �� k�
io it Y7 n. W i i 5
0
Page it 3
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the opening of a new strut proposed
to extend from Four Mille Drive to Summit Ridge give as incorporated in the
petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC.
fi NAME ADDR
E
SS PHONE NER. SIGNATURE
1 "G�Lz' 'e- l l?t6✓ ' ,gO L iC % -is z-'?La.3 . � ':1 1Ya_
3 0 (- I V
.5 /✓
M s t C N Z& -1 S-�: 4{ ? C9�..._,.y+�+►
4 AAo tP_
tA-U-r nEw r ,
2 g
k rS- E? t.c � 1. 25?-40q-°5
5 t Ab pr r WI !L 2-01110
8 L...,. •7S 2- X/3
9 1Wq t/1 t L 64
10 13 $ S�i ? s6 6,0
12 t S r
16
17
1a
19
20
Page # y
TQTiL P.05
lD
�J
�LLase add ��scr p�t�ficvti ,�,b -w� sv��
Pic
Tin t. W a-tetr��d o� �tc�tln.�a�i � LLB..
FEB '.
F.R.Q O.
PETITION Qj)( i
open BF n ec.'-�
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the petition by Joseph Billig, `
Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, for annexation
to the City of Kalispell for the construction of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community on approximately 22 acres between Four Mile Road and Summit
Ridge Drive.
N,A�MEq�
PHONE NBR.
SIGNATURE
/
/ADDRESS
y/
2 . `v/
C\ v,
1 ��..LU_ sa-�
'NIG !NA
Q
Ak-
l
44
Lam- f"-
l Sr /�j'e Gc'
7 - ��>/Y;1"
�/ ,
a
- }o�`
5i
��-
s(�r✓�'rc�ce
�� /�-(d
' rf4 �-�
7
9
�r^ti'r (—t sir='%fit ('� ;
C-71 -� ; , C—,— I
Y
10�—'
&13
12q
13f
xo".j
�'S,�cg
S`� C�:LStI,'t��✓
%S-?-?`-�`fZ ��
��,L-2L
14
d"L'` l Lt'r�>�,'
;�?f'(� : =c f�
c'� "% a " �_,- % -y _s � P0-1 vas
16 /�
Llyk J'/
17f;�
I I jj I < r^ G
f i^ C Y^ A , C
7 5 2. -7=
19
tf 1
�T N
S i (�
,;
PETITION
f
FEB ' 3 1999
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the petition by Joseph Billig,
Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, for annexation
to the City of Kalispell for the construction of a Continuing Care Retiremefit � 'D o.
Community on approximately 22 acres between Four Mile Road and Summit
Ridge Drive.
10 V(v v(L
15
16
17
18
19
Page # q
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the opening of a new street proposed _
to extend from Four Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive as incorporated in the
petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NBR. SIGN ORE
AN
WAR
IVAN
0
d
15
16
17
18
19
20
Page #
PETITION
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the opening of a new strut prgpos5c1
to extend from Four Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive as incorpopted in -the
petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC.
F 2
NAME, ADDRESS _ PHONE NBR. --- GNATURE
Page # 3
PETITION
, 1+
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the petition by Joseph Billig, FEB " 3 1999
Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, for annexation -
to the City of Kalispell for the construction of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community on approximately 22 acres between Four Mile Road and Summft
Ridge Drive.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NBR. SIGNATURE
i-lA�e
2,/ L (20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Page # 3
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the opening of a new street proposed c
to extend from Four Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive as incorporated in the
petition by Joseph Billig, Agent for The Waterford of Flathead Valley LLC.
-
J
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NBR. SIGNATURE
h4l V `
Gr
14
15 ' j �'S��C� � �1'�. iC"_T�l .7 Y 7!7. ,..:.r'��.��
Page # !
, r,
Country Estates Homeowner's Association
P.O. Box 753
Kalispell, MT 59901
Fehruary 09, 1999
Kalispell City -Count; Planning Beard and Toning Commission
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 - 5th Avenue Fall - Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Planning Board,
Wer,are writing to you regarding The Waterford of Flathead Valley IJ.C's proposed 292 unit
senior residential facility on Four Mile Drive. The area is currently zoned suburban agricultural
and the proponent wants the area zoned to a planned unit development to accommodate this very
dense urban project. We reviewed the FRDO Staff Report #KPUD - 99 - I, dated 2/2/99. We
do not approve of this proposed project as presented by the proponent. We agree with the
concerns outlined in this staff report: r
P.5 5. The height limit of the RA-1 zoning district is limited to 35 feet. The proposed facility
is three stories in height and has an average height of approximately 50 feet with some of the
architectural embellishments on the roof extending it in some areas to 56 feet at the maximum
point. With the height and bulk of this facility being located in an area of mostly two story
side family homes, the potential visual impacts associated with the building could he quite
substantial. -
P.6. S. It is questionable whether or not adequate cortsideration has been given to the particular
suitability of this site for this facility. The visual impact associated with the size, height and
bulk of the facility' will be substantial because- of its proximity on the knoll which also sits higher
than any other property in the area. Although it may provide for a good view of the mountains
and valley to the re, s�ident of the facility, it will be highly visible frmn the wrrounding areas
including the subdivisions, (including Country Estates) Highway 93, and from the west. There
are no other resrdenttal huildings and very few of any cornmercW buildiftes to the Kalispell
which are as tall or massive as the one being proposed, which exacerbates concerns about its
proposed kxeation. In addition, most of the other resi�l devel Torrent in the area is single
family residential. Agricultural activities continue to the north, west and south. It does not
appear that the zee chaff give adequate crxtsideratkm to} the particular suitability of the site
for the proposed use.
P.6. 9. The character of the area n pri.-nan-ly single fancily resideMial and agricultural. There
are no multifamily developments in the immediate area and no developments in the planning
jurisdiction that are as large or as tall. As a transition area frorrt urban to rural, it would be
anticipated that this area would develop in a manner more consistent with other residential
devekMxrzerrt in the area. i. esingle family- and duple% Iu)usi.nQ. It does rotarnr�af that the -one
change gives reasonable consideration to the character of the area-
P. 7. 11. Because this re7xming requLKt is :atg3aal in its cornpliance with the try resi4enual
master plan designation and because of the topographical characteristics of the site, it does not
appear that this WOUW encourage the moeq aps %vlaw use of land for this site, but awe
particularly for the planning jurisdiction. It would be hoped that a facility such as this would
kxeate-ck-ee to the care area kif Kalicpell and its as-4viated 4w-t ping, resua� and oar
services.
P.& 1.. It does not appear that consid=tion'lum been given to protectirm 6, environmental
values of the area particularly values associated with scenic vistas, views, ridgeline development
and the character of the area. It doses n� a- r that the site of the facility was done in such a
manner as to preserve or enhance the environmental values or integrity of the area.
P.9.1 It does not appear that the applicants -rave m.-k e adequate for mitigation of the
visual impacts associated with the height of the building or the massive size of the structure.
These elements will tend to r-luce the scenic values of the area, conflict with the basic single
family character of the area and jeopardize the visual enjoyment of the residents.
Our conelt=sionc after ret restiTng the Staff Report :s tlmt this pr(4ect. could fill a need for the
Kalispell area, however this does not appear to be the best location- Excessive height and
excessive density on the fringe of Kali -v11 don:ir to "' pY€�p -'.. The5 R rt ncxt 'ff-rse
mitigation measures, but for this high knoll with an excessively tall structure, it appears that the
only effecti m.itint- ... %kx.mW be to r . t-x.. st: uttur.: to mo si=e--, =. d a maximum he-ight
of 35 feet. Earth tones could be used to help reduce the appearance of the massiveness of the
project and 4elp it Mend :nto the setting frm:: the im..n iate :,r ulzcx�, as well as from
distant views from the north, east and west. The proposed 292 units also appear to be overly
dense to fit m4a famil re-.id��rtK.l nei� - R.�^i.:Q th,- au mu,-r of units by
half might be another method to possibly make the project fit into the site.
Country Estates Homeowner's Association Board Members,
r 107 i xmie(mT�ers,
�- ,ti calf
Kati: v ",-en
bplv4c,-
I.i Retirol
m Kathy Smead
Oree Wamtn
k t� 1 JY-ie�
Carla WorK tide
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
=h7y7714CT7Naom9" ffLorjcFam=W1.7O1l1119AP
AtCtf177LA11AMZMWALFJkt--FUV DCCiWyA1CVTAMk
�Clt F ABRLLC"&
COAMARAC9MlAT77 ACffhMrCOWWWCI7fflorafi"W
Mu7v7lEpcfffc ffm MLIflAWWjc l *4rWWT.
ALCt MVJA1fY4+MACVLAIRAVAE MWOr7U7AWrTOA
PCkhr 77EItCL"WrA MIM MOR 1'MPW 70A> OW..
77ff=AV MAT2PE1 7AL1ZMC.[L1R7tL PW..A10W0RLEGS
ro 77EeourML+oLAro�Yar7►�Luawrrtla�ar n+B+r�
7077ER offcor7a3mdW
AW
7mm9rawf@7Gpr7wAdIl ;vANT4aFr7RACllc4LMW
AAVAtmlpN77WAEV17)A W4U4ffl lCFAWTDY1. TOWNSW
AE AM WANS1 OW ".K PLA7)"C MWN ACNrAM4
AEKAMABAYLL71[E'
CC0MW tiAT7WAL1ll"15WCCAMWOF7W7A4Cr
MMWWAWW77AOCS*WALIIW7WACLlJMMMAC WY
7AINNAf M MALCAtt7A LAa AQUA g ro 77 aU4N7MSEC7ZW
LW AWTANCdCM179iWrBW=ZWAL92WALOW
AI44LLIL707WA O MBMPA AYr77N7At4C7
AEIK$ACI W&"DfCLM7&tTJFCF=LftEAr
0FWA9ff707tEP0WC B82 mva
HOUSE
w - 1 '-•_ � f-'�r�=+1�'L��.-�_` / �V' to ® M�
PHASE I MAN BULDM'ma-
3 aroma
�
a oCNfe3A7E um
14 A893FM U ira
w
PHASE d
;
1A2ar 3
14 A89MM LIM
12MBMALCAMEU rM
,
18AL7Uira
( r
PHASE M
1 STCW
12 BPfim& CALF uWm
i
.f
MAIN BUILDING PHASE 1 ELEVATION
1' . 37
Im12,7E,.,
•
EXtSTMG
SHED
PROPOSED MASTER SITE PLAN
i•-80' O
r�
ws m As .
4 - PHASE H
3SMMM
U CONNATE UN I
_ PHASE M
22 CONGA MTE UWTS
ENTRY GATE
PHASE U COTTAGES
PHASE III TYPICAL DUPLEX ELEVATION
1^.W 1--3LT
PROJECT SUMMARY
�7■101 OmMa
/1Aa►CaOF�71a1
17A�.•Mr M
11�.lt�O
Tf.f1t 110R wiJp
�/I.DlMGI M
104RML M
71R 1 ��
A ,y
"m t wrw.■
tswsa/stws IM■IIY/1! s�la�t■MMs�rMtuss
afenwu atsav
=oft HM
SITE COVERAGE DATA
LL4ILAR15A 2LM AOflti.l7W!
(■LhwsnlfilRrlratftM= IMMOF m2*
LAILtk`.MWAM twuo r Pt"
COTTAGE ANALYSIS
rw�.ewnssw/ue■ tlws�-Iwasswase■
waoeolAslse+rtnref waal■ur..11�arswerlsll
MI1�w1+M l4 MMMAI.►!f
wall■ SMA& w■aa tlwta y■N./wwaa
UNIT/AREA ANALYSIS BY PHASE
--- - Amw
swmom
as:
I FL=
IWAN
a7■towt om-D
` it•gfL�
BMW
H
L11�1 pp�w■
n 1/.St
PHA_M tI
AMA
UH(TTM&
wwOmawAn
?jaw
mWIt=
��.
onxmKos
w,sa
aslrwsauws-.
vm ADm
fvnw
Ad6W=Hnt-H
Iw NMWLQ l•/D- tl
RYfffl m
•ill•
IMr l?RfP(a
lam
1N171
�i� m
AREA
UHLTTOTAL
efpl HBO" •ATHM
tasa
aamsamtsm-A
$mow
f�M
werac+rw uns-tl
INMF.lGt7�1
7tl1�R0711
AtiwMHfll.H
TOTAL UNIT COUNT (N1 PHASES)
295 UNITS
PARKING ANALYSIS
o»•ssrv+sa FlMl1 "vm, TRfx
IAIialO Q1M� ■ ! •
a1 WNOf ►MM ■ ■ Hl
IwcmzWmFAmW=-m
mr>L rw.stl s►� m ■ aH
PROJECT DIRECTORY
O„NEISg WATERFM DEVELOPMENT
RE?FMe9ATM a CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
mMAW a Ft**Ft
somvntan000ea
1 oomk,M...101 ■.1
"L oo swam
rms" W"m
pRO,IECT m AGM WATUT DEVELOPMENT a
DESIGNER CONSTIVUCTION Co.
.raster slim
"m M.lTn cmW
890WOM 001" Aa.
TK w'■ 6"m
►Axowl.....t