07. Presentation - Annexation and Initial Zoning with PUD Overlay - Valley RanchCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2"d Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 75 l --1 S5o
Fax: (406) 751--1858
Website: kalispellplanning.com
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT Gateway Properties LLC. - Annexation and Initial zoning of
R-2 , Suburban Residential, and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
MEETINGr DATE: June 4, 2007
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on April 10, 2007 and held a
public hearing to consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation
of R-2, Single Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay
district on an 80.7t acre project site. The 80.7± acre project site is located on the east
side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93
and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of highway
frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home Outfitters.
The properties included in the project site can be described as Tract 2, 'Tract 3 and
Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West.
Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff reports #KA-07-5
and KPUD-07-2, evaluated the proposal, and recommended the planning board
recommend approving both the R-2 and PUD zoning request subject to the 13
conditions contained in the staff report. He noted the future subdivision plans for the
property but at this time staff is only evaluating the initial zoning and PUD.
At the public hearing the developer and two of his consultants spoke to the merits of
the project. These include the mix of housing types, additional parkland and open
space and how larger lots were included along the northern boundary of the project
site to provide a transition into the Ponderosa subdivision.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting the board heard from 9 neighboring
residents. The majority of the speakers opposed the project based on concerns with
the density of the project, potential grater impacts to surrounding properties, traffic
impacts, inadequate setbacks from the Ponderosa Subdivision and light pollution.
Those favoring the project felt the increased density made sense and the type of
density proposed should be located within the city limits. Others thought the project
was well thought out and provided a lot of open space to coincide with the increased
housing density.
Gateway Properties LLC --- Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-2/PUD
May 30, 2007
Page 2
The planning board was also notified during the public hearing that a protest to the
initial zoning district of R-2 was being submitted by adjoining property owners in
accordance with State law. This provision states that if over 25% of the property
owners living within 150 feet of the zone change protest, a minimum of 2/3 of the city
council must approve the zone change.
After the public hearing was closed the planning board discussed the initial zoning of
the project site and recommended on a vote of 3-2 that the City Council approve an RW-
2 zoning district for the site. The two board members who opposed the R-2 zoning
cited concerns with the density of the project, requested deviations in the PUD and
traffic impacts associated with the development of the site.
After further discussion on the requested PUD portion of the project, a motion was
made to table action on the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 8, 2007 meeting. The
motion to table passed on a roll. call vote of 3 to 2. The board tabled discussion and
action on the PUD portion of the proposal to address concerns both the board and
public had on the project.
After the April 10th meeting the developer revised the PUD plan submitted to the
planning board's April 10th meeting. The altered PUD plan illustrated how staff
conditions and input from the public during the April 10th meeting would affect the
PUD plan. The altered PUD plan was provided to the planning board with an attached
memo prior to the May gth meeting.
At the May 8, 2007 planning board meeting two more people spore on the proposed
PUD plan during the general public comment period. The main issues brought up
were the increased density of the project, stormwater, the public benefit the PUD
would provide and the inadequate notice of the revised PUD plan before the planning
g
board. The board continued discussion on the requested PUD. The main focus of
discussion was preserving the existing trees on the project site located between future
lots in the Valley Ranch PUD and homes in the Ponderosa Subdivision. Planning
board members noted that the revised plan dated April 23, 2007 provides a greater
setback along the homes in the Ponderosa subdivision and would help to preserve the
trees.
A motion was made to amend condition # 1 to delete Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5-
07 and insert the modified plan dated April 23, 2007 and recommend approval of the
proposed PUD zoning district with the recommended conditions in the staff report as
amended. This motion passed unardmously.
Gateway Properties LLC - Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-2 / PUD
May 30, 2007
Page 3
PEC[]MIVIENDATION: A motion to approve the resolution annexing the property and
a motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance for initial zoning would be in
order
FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once fully developed.
ALTERNATIVES. As suggested by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
if
Sean Conrad �/Jameis H. atrick
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: May 30, 2007
Attachments:
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
KA-07-05
Valley Ranch Annexation
Cost of Services Analysis (Residential)
Once annexed to the City, full City services will be made available to the property owner.
Any necessary infrastructure associated with a future development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City of Ka ispell's Design and Construction standards
and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply.
Number of Dwelling Units 1proposed to be annexed
222 single family residences
80 Assisted Living Units/ 20 Independent Living Condominiums
The following factors will be used for the approximate costs associated with the
assisted/ independent living facility
• 1.3 persons per unit
• 50,000 square foot building size
• 0.75 ERU per bed
Estimated Increase in Population: (based on US Census Figure of 2.2 per household)
I. Cost of Se rvaice s
Per capita costs
* Fire: $68.84 per person per year.
Additional costs to the fire department 618 x 68.84 = $ 42,543
* Police: 110 per resident per year.
Additional costs to the police department 518 x 110.00 = $ 67,980
• Administration: $39.48.
Additional cost to administration 618 x 39.48 = $24,398
Solid waste:
Additional cost to solid waste (none for five years) = $ 0
• Roads: $193.56 per dwelling unit
Additional cost in road maintenance
322 x 193.56 =$ 623,326
• Water: $221.21 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit)
Additional cost in water line maintenance 297 x 221.21 = $65,699
• Sewer: $329.64 per ERU
Additional cost in sewer maintenance 297 x 329.64 = $97,903
Storm water: $72.68 per ERU
Additional cost in storm maintenance 297 x 72.68 -$212585
1
Total Anticipated east of Services.
2. Assessment revenue based on s uare foo e:
$382,434
Average square foot per lot: 8,000 square feet (The assisted/independent living
facility has been included in the lot count)
Storm sewer assessment $0.004480 per square foot
(capped at 1/2 acre for residential)
Revenue - storm sewer assessments: 223 x 8,000 sq. ft. x $0.004480 = $7,992
* Street maintenance assessment $0.0101 per square foot
(capped at 1/2 acre for residential)
Revenue - street maintenance assessments 223 x 8,000 sq. ft. x $0.0101 =$18,018
• Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square foot
(capped at $150 for residential)
Revenue -urban forestry assessments 223 x 8,000 sq.ft. x $0.00135 = $ 2,408
cap
• Special Assessments: There are no special assessments. = $ p
Light maintenance assessment $0.003 per square foot
(no cap)
Revenue - light maintenance assessment 223 x 8,000 sq.ft. x $0.003 5,352
Total Anticipated Revenue From Assessments: $33,1770
3. Tax revenue:
s Assessed value per property: $ 235,000/house
$ 75,000 / assisted-indepnedent living unlit
Total assessed value: 222 x 235,000 = $ 521170,000
100 x 75,000 = $ 7,500,000
Total taxable: 59,670,000 x 0.03543 = $ 2,114,108
Total revenue based on 170 mill lever: $2,114, 108 x 0.170 - 359 398
Total anticipated Revenue from Property taxes: $359,1398
4. 1mvact fees revenue:
• Water system impact fee $2,155 per residence
Revenue -water system impact fee upon hook up 222 x $2,155 =$ 478,410
(Note that they may not initially hook up to city)
Assisted/Independent living facility based on 2" line = $ 17,240
• wastewater impact fee $2,433 per ERU
pj,
(A single family home is (1) ERU)
Revenue -wastewater impact fee upon connection 222 x $27433 =$ 540,126
(Note that they may not initially hook up to city)
Assisted/Independent living facility based = $ 182,475
on number or ERU x $2433 per ERU
• Storm water impact fee $1,092 per ERU
(A singe family home is (1) ERU)
Revenue -existing development 222 x $1,092=$242,424
Assisted/Independent living facility based on 4.6 acre site = $ 261,208
* Police impact fee $43 per single family residential unit
Revenue -- existing development 222 x $43 = $93,546
Assisted/ Independent living facility based on 50,000 sq. ft. = $ 650
• Fire impact fee $533 per unit (single family residential)
Revenue -existing development 222 x $533 = $118,326
Assisted/Independent living facility based on 50,000 sq. ft. _ $ 12,000
Tatar. Anticipated Revenue From Impact Fees: $19627�405
ITUE SUNDAARY
Total assessment and table revenue to the City (Items 2 8v 3) $ 393,168
Less costs of services to the city (item 11 382,434
Net annual revenue to the city $ 101,734
One Time Impact Fee Payment to the City (1tem 4) $ 11,627,405
NOTE: This information is based upon assumptions regarding building valuations and
does not take into consideration the build -out time or changes in methods of assessment
and estimated costs associated with services. This information can only be used as a
general estimate of the anticipated cost of services and revenue. Additionally, the impact
fees are based on an assumption that water and sewer impact fees will be paid at the time
of hook up for the existing house and that storm water, police and fire impact fees are
payable at the time of annexation of an existing residence.
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2°d Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
Website: kalispellplanning.com
DATE: May 30, 2007
REPORT TO. Kalispell Mayor and City Council
City Manager
FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner��_._..
SUBJECT Gateway Properties LLC. -Annexation and Initial Zoning of
R-2 / PUD
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2007
At the April 10th planning board meeting neighboring residents provided signed
petitions against the requested zone changes to R-2 and the PUD overlay zoning
district. section 76-2--305, Alteration of zoning regulations -- protest, of Montana Code
Annotated (MCA) states the following:
(1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed,
modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2--303 relative to public hearings and
official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments.
(2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds
of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the
municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection. (1) is signed by the
owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or
(b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change.
There are 30 lots within 150 feet of the property requesting the zone change. The
required number of signatures is based on the certified ownership list provided by the
developer upon submitting the zone change application. subsection 2 above states a
protest must be signed by owners of 25% or more of those lots 150 feet from a lot
included in a proposed change. The city attorney has advised that when a lot is
owned by a husband and wife that both signatures should be on the petition
protesting the zone change. Although a protest was provided which includes 12 of the
30 lots within 150 feet of the lots included in the proposed zone change, only 3 lots
have all or a majority of the required owners signatures. I am contacting the other g
lot owners to verify if their respective spouse or other property owners do indeed
protest the zone change and will require them to provide a signature on or as an
attachment to the petition.
Page 2
At this time a motion to approve the requested R-2/PUD zoning for the 80 acre site the
will not require atwo-thirds majority vote of the present and voting members of the
city council. As I stated above, I will be contacting the other lot owners prior to your
meeting on June 4th. If additional signatures are included in the petition that meets or
exceeds the 25% requirement under section 76-2-305(2) then I will advise you of the
two-thirds approval of the zone change as required per section 76-2-305(2).
In addition to the property owners within 150 feet of the property requesting the zone
change, 53 additional property owners signed a separate petition protesting the
requested R-2/PUD zoning.
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2 d Street East, Suite 21.1, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
Website: kalispellplanning.com
Date: April. 30, 2007
To: Kalispell Planning Board members
From: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
Re: Valley Ranch Annexation, Initial Zoning and Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
The following is a summary of the April 10th planning board hearing in which the
planning board heard from the planning staff, the consultant and developer of the
proposed project and the general public. After the public hearing was closed the
planning board discussed the initial zoning of the project site and recommended on a
vote of 3-2 that the City Council approve an R--2 zoning district for the site. The two
board members who opposed the R-2 zoning cited concerns with the density of the
project, requested deviations in the PUD and traffic impacts associated with the
development of the site.
After further discussion of the project a motion was made to table action on the PUD
for Valley Ranch until the May S, 2007 meeting. The motion to table passed on a roll
call vote of 3 to 2. The board tabled discussion and action on the PUD portion of the
proposal to address concerns both the board and public had on the project. This
included a redesign of the subdivision to reflect the rural area that it sits in and
provide more detail on the roads and traffic circulation.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting the board heard from 9 neighboring
residents. The majority of the speakers opposed the project based on concerns with
the density of the project, potential water impacts to surrounding properties, traffic
impacts, inadequate setbacks from the Ponderosa Subdivision and light pollution.
Those favoring the project felt the increased density made sense and the type of
density proposed should be located within the city limits. Others thought the project
was well thought out and provided a lot of open space to coincide with the increased
housing density.
The planning board was also notified during the public hearing that a protest to the
initial zoning district of R-2 was being submitted by adjoining property owners in
accordance with State law. This provision states that if over 25% of the property
owners living within 150 feet of the zone change protest, a minimum of 2/3 of the city
council must approve the zone change. The protest will be forwarded to the city
attorney and the city council.
Also during the public hearing the board was provided a letter from Sharon Demeester
dated April 10, 2007 and addressed to the Kalispell City Planning Board outlining
several issues with the application and proposed project. The first 2 pages of this
letter are attached (Ms. DeMeester provided a complete copy to the board at the
hearing and another copy is attached to the minutes of April 10thincluded in these
packets.) I have provided a brief evaluation of each of the main issues contained in
her letter on pages 1 and 2 for your consideration below:
Issue 1 -- inadequate information submitted with PUD application
Section 27.21.030(5) lists the information needed for a PUD application. The
developer did not submit information including elevations of the residences or
the management of common facilities such as the alleys or potential park areas
within the proposed PUD plan at this time. Design guidelines have been
included with the application for homes within the proposed PUD. It is
uncertain at this time whether any or all the parkland within the project will be
owned and maintained by the city. This would be determined and additional
information would be required once a subdivision application is submitted.
The PUD preliminary plan does not require a preliminary plat be submitted in
conjunction with the PUD preliminary plan. Subsection 1 of Section
27.21.030(5) states that if the PUD involves the subdivision of land that the
subdivision meets the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations
and Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The applicant is proposing to
submit a subdivision at a later date.
Issue 2 - Annexation hearing
The City of Kalispell has adopted procedures to amend the zoning map for the
city in conjunction with an annexation request. The City does not hold a public
hearing on the annexation request rather a public hearing is held on the
appropriate zoning for the property if it is annexed into the city. As part of
considering a city zoning district for the property, Section 76- 2-303(3) (a)
Montana Code Annotated requires the city zoning district to allow land uses
comparable to land uses authorized by county zoning and the zoning district be
consistent with the zoning requirements recommended in the adopted growth
policy for Kalispell. The property is currently zoned SAG-10 in the county
which permits residential type development. The requested zoning of R-2 and
the proposed PUD also limit the land uses of the site to residential. The PUD
does provide for higher densities internally with larger lots adjacent to the
existing lots of the Ponderosa subdivision.. As discussed in your staff report,
the planning board can consider the R-2 and PUD zoning consistent with the
Suburban Residential land use designation for the project site.
Issue 3 -- Failure to demonstrate the public benefit the proposed PUD project
provides with the increased density and relaxed R-2 zoning standards
The proposed PUD plan includes a variety of housing types (i.e. detached single
fancily homes, townhomes, assisted living and independent living facility) with
the incorporation of alleys for the townhomes and smaller single family lots. As
discussed in the staff` report the proposed PUD plan also provides open space
and parkland above what would be required under a typical subdivision
scenario. The board can consider the amenities included in the plan, varying
housing types, and alley oriented design in the higher density areas as meeting
the intent of the PUD zoning district.
Issue 4 - Trafilc impacts
The developer had a traffic impact study conducted which states that a full turn
movement onto Highway 93 would not be permitted at the two highway access
points shown on the PUD plan. A recommended condition of approval would
require the developer to obtain a full turning movement access onto either
Highway 33 or Whitefish Stage Road prior to obtaining final plat approval for
the first phase of the future subdivision. Pursuant to Section 27.21.020 (7) of
the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, a time limit is recommended on the
proposed PUD plan. The time limits for the PUD are reflected in Condition 13
in the staff report.
Issue 5 - Future amendments to the proposed PUD
The developer is requesting a PUD which would permit a future assisted living
and independent living facility in the northwest corner of the project site. Since
there are not definite plans with regard to size, height, configuration of the
structure, parking, etc. at this point the developer is requesting permission to
place that type of use on the project site. The amendment to the PUD would
provide the detailed information at a future date when the developer is ready to
move forward on the assisted living and impendent living facility. Amendments
to the PUD are allowed with major amendments approved by the city council.
As part of the recommended conditions of approval, Condition 3 requires the
developer to amend the PUD prior to obtaining a building permit for the
assisted and independent living facility.
Issue 6 - Inappropriate site location for the future assisted living facility due to
height, noise and groundwater concerns
The issues outlined in this point would be addressed at the point the developer
submits a subdivision application or the developer requests the final approvals
on the assisted living and independent living facility.
The developer has provided a slightly altered PUD plan, which is attached to this
memo, and illustrates how staff conditions and input from the public during the April
meeting would affect the PUD plan. A letter from Bruce Lutz of Sitescape Associates
lists the minor modifications made to the PUD plan.
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2' Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax. (406) 751--1858
Wehsite: kalispellplanning. co3m
May 30, 2007
James H. Patrick, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Gateway Properties LLC - Annexation and Initial zoning of R-2 / PUD
Dear Jim:
The Kalispell City Planning Board met on April 10, 2007 and held a public hearing to
consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation of R-2, Single
Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district on an
80.7t acre project site. The 80.7f acre project site is located on the east side of
Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West
Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of highway frontage
between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home Outfitters. The
properties included in the project site can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract
2Bc in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West.
Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff reports #KA-07-5
and KPUD-07-2, evaluated the proposal, and recommended the planning board
recommend approving both the R-2 and PUD zoning request subject to the 13
conditions contained in the staff report. He noted the future subdivision plans for the
property but at this time staff is only evaluating the initial zoning and PUD.
At the public hearing the developer and two of his consultants spore to the merits of
the project. These include the mix of housing types, additional parkland and open
space and how larger lots were included along the northern boundary of the project
site to provide a transition into the Ponderosa subdivision.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting the board heard from 9 neighboring
residents. The majority of the speakers opposed the project based on concerns with
the density of the project, potential crater impacts to surrounding properties, traffic
impacts, inadequate setbacks from the Ponderosa Subdivision and light pollution.
Those favoring the project felt the increased density made sense and the type of
density proposed should be located within the city limits. Others thought the project
Gateway Properties LLC Annexation and Initial zoning
May 30, 2007
Page 2
was well thought out and provided a lot of open space to coincide with the increased
housing density.
The planning board was also notified during the public hearing that a protest to the
initial zoning district of R--2 was being submitted by adjoining property owners in
accordance with State law. This provision states that if over 25% of the property
owners living within. 150 feet of the zone change protest, a minimum of 2/3 of the city
council must approve the zone change.
After the public hearing was closed the planning board discussed the initial zoning of
the project site and recommended on a vote of 3-2 that the City Council approve an R-
2 zoning district for the site. The two board members who opposed the R.-2 zoning
cited concerns with the density of the project, requested deviations in the PUD and
traffic impacts associated with the development of the site.
After further discussion on the requested PUD portion of the project, a motion was
made to table action on the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 8, 2007 meeting. The
motion to table passed on a roll call vote of 3 to 2. The board tabled discussion and
action on. the PUD portion of the proposal to address concerns both the board and
public had on the project.
After the April loth meeting the developer revised the PUD plan submitted to the
planning board's April loth meeting. The altered PUD plan illustrated how staff'
conditions and input from the public during the April 10th meeting would affect the
PUD plan. The altered PUD plan was provided to the planning board with an attached
memo prior to the May Sth meeting.
At the May S, 2007 planning board meeting two more people spoke on the proposed
PUD plan during the general public comment period. The main issues brought up
were the increased density of the project, storm.water, the public benefit the PUD
would provide and the inadequate notice of the revised PUD plan before the planning
board. The board continued discussion on the requested PUD. The main focus of
discussion was preserving the existing trees on the project site located between future
lots in the Valley Ranch PUD and homes in the Ponderosa Subdivision. Planning
board members noted that the revised plan dated April 23, 2007 provides a greater
setback along the homes in the Ponderosa subdivision and would help to preserve the
trees.
A motion was made to amend Condition # 1 to delete Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-
5-07 and insert the modified plan dated April 23, 2007 and recommend approval of
the proposed PUD zoning district with the recommended conditions in the staff report
as amended. This motion passed unanimously.
Gateway Properties LLC Annexation and Initial Zoning
May 30, 2007
Page 3
Please schedule this matter for the June 4, 2007 regular Kalispell City Council
meeting. You may contact this board or Sean Conrad at the Kalispell Planning
Department if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Kalispell City Planning Board
z2 14
Timothy Norton
President
Attachments: Exhibit A -- Petition to Annex
Staff report #KA--07-5/KPUD-07-2 and application materials
Minutes from the 4 / 10 / 07 planning board meeting
Draft minutes from the 5 / 8 / 07 planning board meeting
c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c w/o Att: Gateway Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 8776
Kalispell, MT 59904
Sitescape Associates
P.G. Box1417
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Gateway Properties LLC Annexation and Initial zoning
May 30, 2007
Page 4
IT A
VALLEY RANCH PUD
CONDITIONS GP APPROVAL
AS RECoB94ENDED BY THE KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 89 2007
PUD Conditions
General Conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with
the following plans, materials and other specifications as well as any
additional conditions associated with the PUD as approved by the city
council-,
• Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 4-23 -07
■ Valley Ranch PUD plan indicting lots sizes and land use types dated
4-23 -07.
Note: The approved PUD allows the density to increase in the R--2
district as well as allow a reduced lot size and width to accommodate
the proposed PUD plan.
2. Townhouse lots with a configuration of 2 or more units shall be
permitted within the Valley Ranch PUD however all garages shall be alley
loaded.
3. An assisted and independent living facility shall be permitted within the
Valley Ranch PUD. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the assisted
and independent living facility the developer shall submit an amendment
to the Valley Ranch PUD for a public hearing showing the location, size,
elevations, landscaping and parking associated with the assisted and
independent living facility. Note: The building shall incorporate four
sided architecture and an on -site public transit location. Building plans
shall incorporate the use of an automatic fire suppression system..
4. Setbacks shall be amended as follows and shall apply only to the house
unless otherwise specified:
a. 10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots
b. 5 foot side setbacks on all lots except the larger detached single
family lots lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the
project site (lots 1-16 and 179-204 as shown on the Valley Ranch
Planned Unit Development)
Gateway Properties LLC Annexation and Initial zoning
May 30, 2007
Page 5
C. 5-foot rear yard setback for the garage only on all lots with alley
access. The 10-foot rear setback shall still apply to those lots
without alley access.
Note: In order for a garage to utilize the 5-Moot setback the garage
doors shall be side loaded (garage doors are facing parallel to the
alley instead of perpendicular)
5. The impact area along Highway 93 shall be expanded to a minimum of
100 feet. within this area the developer shall incorporate a combination
of berming, landscaping and a 10-Moot wide bike/ pedestrian path along
the proj ect's Highway 93 frontage. A detailed plan of this impact area
shall be provided with the submittal of a preliminary plat for the project
site.
6. Any parking or signage within the impact area shall only be permitted as
an amendment to the Valley Ranch PUD. Signs shall be limited to
monument signs and shall be located in the rear portion of the impacted
area, other free standing signs shall not be allowed.
7. A landscaping plan for any lift stations on the project site shall be
provided with the submittal of a preliminary plat. The landscaping plan
shall incorporate a combination of trees and shrubs with a density
adequate to screen the lift station from public view.
8. The future subdivision on the project site shall not be given final plat
approval until a street connection is made to the south or east which
provides a full movement intersection in order for traffic to travel south
on either Highway 93 or Whitefish Stage Road.
9. The open space and parkland shall comprise of 15.1 acres plus the
additional land area needed to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer along
Highway 93. The area shown on the approved PUD plan as parkland
adjacent to Highway 93 shall remain in size and shape as shown on the
approved plan. Exact size and location of other parks shown on the
approved PUD plan shall be determined by the city council with
recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Director and planning
board.
10. Upon submitting a preliminary plat for the project site the developer
shall submit a parks improvement plan to be reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Director. of the 15.1 + acres of open space and parkland a
minimum of 10.59 acres shall be incorporated as parkland.
11. The power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located
within the alley right-of-way. Where an alley is not adjacent to the lot
the power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located
Gateway Properties LLG Annexation and Initial Zoning
May 30, 2007
Page 6
within a separate 5-Moot easement outside of the road right-of-way
easement.
12. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a
full cutoff lens so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining
properties.
13. Approval of the planned unit development shall be valid for a period of
three years from the date of approval with the possibility of a one-year
extension to be granted by the city council. within this time the
developers shall obtain approval of a preliminary plat for the project site.
When a preliminary plat is submitted and approved for the site the
preliminary plat will have up to three years to complete the first phase
and two years to complete subsequent phases, if applicable. The Valley
Ranch P D shall expire if, after preliminary plat approval is given, the
final plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes
Gatewa PrORerties, Inc.
REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 UPON ANNEXATION
STAFF REPORT #KA- 07-5
REQUEST FORA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT # -07.2
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH 26, 2007
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the
request for annexation and initial zoning of R-2 (Single Family Residential) and a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a property located on the east side of Highway 93
approximately 11I2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive.
A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for April 10, 2007,
be ` ` g 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.
A. Petitioner and Owners: Gateway Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 8776
Kalispell, MT 59904
(406) 249-7317
Technical Assistance: Sitescape Associates
P.O. Box 1417
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3492
B. Nature of the Request: The property owners have requested annexation into the
City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2, Single Family Residential, and a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning district on the 80.7t acre project
site. The PUD will be known as Talley Ranch and is proposing 204 residential lots,
29 townhouse lots, a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 120
units and 15.1 acres of open space and parkland on the project site. The proposed
plan departs from the requested zoning of R-2 with regards to uses permitted within
the zoning district, mir * um lot area, nunimum lot width and setback requirements.
A detailed discussion of the proposed deviations from the R-2 zoning district can be
found on page 6.
G. Location and Legal Description of Property: The properties included in the
proposed project can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract 2BC in Section 19,
Township 29 Norm, Range 21 west. The 80.7t acre project site is located on the
east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1I.2 miles north of the intersection of
Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet
of highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Horne
Outfitters. From the highway the project site extends east and south wrapping
around the southern boundary of the Ponderosa subdivision.
D. F r3sting Land Use and Zoning: The property is currently in the County zoning
jurisdiction and is zoned SAG -10, Suburban Agricultural. The purpose of the SAG-
10 district is to provide and preserve agricultural functions and to provide a buffer
between urban and unlimited agricultural uses, encourage separation of such uses
in areas where potential conflict of uses will be minimized, and to provide areas of
estate -type residential development. The 80.7t acre project site is currently
undeveloped. The land is level for the most part with a small hill along the western
boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 93. Portions of the eastern boundary of
the project site are at the base of another small hill, the majority of which makes up
the area developed with the Ponderosa Subdivision, a single-family residential
subdivision located in the county.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Single-family homes and commercial business, County E-1 and
County R-1 zoning
East: Single-family homes; County R-1 and SAG-10 zoning
South: Agricultural lands; County SAG-5 zoning.
West: Commercial businesses and National Guard Armory; County SAG-10
zoning
Fo General Land Use Character: This site is in a mixed use area generally
characterized as agricultural lands mixed with single family residences to the east
and north of the site. Immediately south of the site is a large agricultural tract of
land currently undeveloped. To the west, along Highway 93, are existing
commercial businesses and a church. Across Highway 93, on its west side, is a
private golf course.
G. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
Private contractor
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Gas:
Northwestern Energy
Telephone:
Cen.turyTel
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
I. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR MTL4 L ZONING AND
PROPOSED PUD OVERLAY
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303,
M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the
itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M. C.A. and Section. 27. 30.020, Kalispell
Zoning ordinance.
2
1. Does the requested zone comply with the owth olio ?
On August 7, 2000 the Kalispell City Council adopted Resolution 5129E which
amended the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use map north to the
intersection of Highway 93 and Church Drive. On the amended land use map the
80.7 acre project site is designated suburban Residential with typical densities of
up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre.
The R_2 zoning designation being proposed for the 80.7 acre project site can be
found to be consistent with the Suburban Residential land use designation shown
on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map dated August 8, 2006.
The R--2 zoning district is intended primarily for detached single-family dwellings.
It has a minimum lot size requirement of 9,600 square feet and a minimum lot
width of 70 feet. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides and
rear. The requested PUD would deviate from the minimum lot sizes but would
maintain a single-family residential development except for a proposed assisted
and independent living facility in the northwest corner of the project site.
The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, Chapter 3, Policy 9 states in part that
suburban housing densities should not exceed two to four dwellings per gross
acre. The proposed PUD would exceed this density slightly at approximately 4.5
dwelling units per gross acre, however section 27.21.030(4) of the Kalispell
Zoning ordinance allows a maximum permissible density of 5 dwellings per acre
if a residential PUD is created.
Subsection b of Policy 9 further states that the suburban residential designation
is intended to reduce density and development impacts in sensitive areas and
existing rural neighborhoods. The proposed R-2 zoning district limits the land
uses to primarily single-family residences with a density of approximately 4.5
dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed PUD would provide for larger lots,
varying between 15,000t square feet to 30,000f square feet adjacent to the
Ponderosa subdivision, as well as lots smaller than minimum lot size under the R-
2 zoning district. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural neighborhood plated in
the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa subdivision vary
between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The proposed PUD layout would provide larger
lots adjacent to Ponderosa as described above. The larger lots would provide a
transition between the smaller single-family lots proposed in the interior of the
PUD layout. 'therefore, the proposed R-2 zoning district and PUD can be found to
comply with the Suburban Residential land use designation and *IMP
lement the
policies regarding Suburban Housing as found in Chapter 3 of the Kalispell
Growth Policy.
2. Is the re uested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
As part of the overall project proposal the developer had a traffic impact study
conducted to provide possible mitigation measures to the increase in traffic the
development proposal will have on Highway 93. It can be anticipated that the
proposed zone change of the property will increase traffic impacts in the area due to
the relatively low density of the area currently and the relatively higher density
allowed under the proposed R-2 and PUD zoning districts. However, through the
3
PUD and subsequent subdivision review process conditions will be recommended to
insure that existing streets are upgraded and new traffic routes are provided to lessen
congestion in the streets. A full discussion of the traffic impact study and
recommended mitigation measures can be found under the review for the PUD in this
staff report.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
At the time this property is developed, the property owners will be required to
insure that there is adequate infrastructure in the case of an emergency. There
are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the
public. New construction will be required to be in compliance with the building
safety codes of the city which relate to fire and building safety. All municipal
services including police and fire protection, water and surer service is available
to the property and will be utilised at the time another lot is created in the future.
The site is within the immediate service area of the new north Kalispell fire
station.
4. Will the rectuested. zone promote the health and general welfare?
The requested zoning classifications will promote the health and general welfare
by restricting land uses to those which would be compatible with the adjoining
properties and provides a place for new housing in the community.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure adequate Light and air
is provided.
6. Wi R the reguested zone revent the overcrowdin of land?
As previously noted, this area has been anticipated for suburban residential
development. The anticipated densities of the proposed zoning districts can be
found to be consistent with the land use designation for the site. All public
services and facilities will be available to serve this property. An overcrowding of
land would occur if infrastructure were inadequate to accommodate the
development in the area. This is unlikely to occur.
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of eo le?
An increase in the number and concentration of people in the area will likely result
after this land has been converted from county agricultural zoning to a more intensive
residential use within the city. However, the intensity of the uses of the property
would be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and
facilities as well as compliance with established design standards. The design
standards and availability of utilities would provide the infrastructure needed to
insure that there will not be an overcrowding; of the land or undue concentration of
people. Minimum lot standards and use standards as well as subdivision
development standards will avoid the undue concentration of people at the time
the property is further developed.
0
S. will the reguested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportationi. water
sewers e schools 221ks, and other tblic re uirements?
Municipal water and sewer will be extended along Highway 93 past the site to the
Silverbrook Estates subdivision, located at the intersection. of Church Drive and
Highway 93, this summer. The water and sewer lines wiU be sized to accommodate
this development. The developer would need to extend the needed city services that
are not currently extended to the property at the developers' expense and in
accordance with the city's policies and standards. New improvements to the property
such as roads, water, sewer, parks and drainage would be installed in accordance
with city policies and standards at the developers' expense thereby insuring that there
is adequate provision of services at the site prior to development. Fire, police,
ambulance and public access are adequate to accommodate potential impacts
associated with the development of this site. There will be impacts to services that
can be anticipated as a result of this proposal which can be met by the city. All
public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the
property.
9. Does the reguested zone 've consideration to the particular suitabi4ty of the
properly or particular uses?
The 30.7 acre site is fairly level throughout with a small hill on the western
boundary of the site and some moderate slopes along the eastern boundary of the
site. The proposed R--2 zoning would encompass the entire project site. As stated
previously, Chapter 3, policy 9(b) of the Kalispell Growth Policy states that the
Suburban Residential land use designation is intended to reduce density and
development impacts in sensitive areas. The Suburban Residential designation
encompasses the entire 80.7 acre project site.
Based on the location of the proposed R-2 and PUD zoning districts and their
corresponding uses and densities, the requested zoning does give consideration to
the particular suitability of the property for the particular uses under the
requested zoning districts.
10. Does the requested zone 've reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The general character of the area is a mix of agricultural, commercial and rural
residential development. The proposed zoning allows this development to address
needs within the community for a variety of housing types in reasonable proximity to
the city core for the future. Availability of public water and sewer to the area indicate
that this type of development will continue to occur on the urban fringes of the
community to be developed with similar types of uses as is proposed with this
property, i.e. suburban residential rather than rural residential or agricultural uses.
It appears that the proposed rezoning gives reasonable consideration to the character
of the district.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The development anticipated under the proposed zoning is more intensive than the
5
land uses currently surrounding the project site. City standards will insure that there
is high quality development which will insure the value of buildings and homes is
protected, maintained and, conserved. Value of the buildings in the area will be
conserved because the zoning will promote compatible and like uses on this
property as are found on other properties in the immediate area.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the municivality?
Suburban residential development is encouraged in areas were services and
facilities are available or can be extended to serge such development such as the
development being proposed in conjunction with the annexation, initial zoning
and PUD request. When the city council adopted the growth policy amendment
for this area and designated the 50.7± acre project site as Suburban Residential,
the council determined at that time suburban residential development was the
most appropriate use of this land. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
growth policy plan.
EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Project Narrative: Valley Ranch is a residential planned unit development proposed
on property currently in the County. The property owners have requested
annexation into the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R--2. The proposed
PUD would allow a variety of residential uses on the 80.7 acre project site not
currently permitted within the R-2 zoning district. The PUD request includes
allowing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and
independent living facility. The 204 residential lots would vary in size from 6,000
square feet to over 1/2 an acre. The 29 proposed townhouse lots would range in size
from 2,640 square feet to 3,740 square feet. The assisted and independent living
facility is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. The facility would encompass
approximately 4.6 acres and, as stated in the application, will come back before the
pl ' g board and city council as an amendment to the PUD when the developers
are ready to proceed with the facility. The intent of the initial zoning and PUD
request is to secure the zoning and requested deviations included in the PUD to
allow a future subdivision on the 80.7 acre site. The subdivision will, for the most
part, comply with the plan shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development.
In order to allover the design of the future subdivision shown as part of the
application, the proposed PUD seeks six deviations or relaxations from the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. The six relaxations are as follows:
1. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
The minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall maximum density
within the R-2 zoning district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a
density of approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential lots, 29 townhouse
lots, 120 unit assisted living faccilty/ 80.7 acres)which is slightly higher than the
n
perr fitted density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall
within the permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units/acre under
section 27.21.030, Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
This section requires a minimum lot size of 3,600 square feet for new lots created
in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a
townhouse lot.
3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district)
This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration of 2
or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration, of 2 or more
attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit
be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that
the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use.
4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2
zoning district)
The minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is
requesting the minimum. lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single
family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots.
5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Minimum yard setbacks in the
R-2 zoning district)
The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and
rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to
10 feet for side corner property boundary on all of the lots within the subdivision.
A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested on all lots
except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and eastern
boundaries of the project site (lots 1-16 and 179-204 as shown on the Valley
Ranch Planned Unit Development) . A 5-foot rear yard setback is also proposed on
all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback would still apply to those lots
without alley access.
6. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning
district)
The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with
up to 120 units be permitted within the R--2 zoning district. Currently assisted
and independent living facilities are not permitted or conditionally permitted
within the R-2 Zoning district.
7
Criteria for the Creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell zoning Ordinance. The intent of the planned unit development provisions are
to provide a zoning district classification which allows some flexibility in the zoning
regulations and the mixing of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and
enhancing the integrity of the neighborhood and the environmental values of an area.
The zoning ordinance has a provision for the creation of a PUD district upon annexation
of the property into the city.
Review of A lication Based Upon PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations
provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the
following criteria:
L 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 stated above the owners are requesting six relaxations in the zoning and subdivision
regulations. Below are the six relaxations requested with the consultants reasoning on
why such departures are deemed to be in the public interest. Planning staff has
provided its comments in italics.
1. Kalispell zoning ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
The minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall density within the
R--2 zoning district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a density of
approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 120
unit assisted living faci.lty/ 80.7 acres) which is slightly higher than the permitted
density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall within the
permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units f acre under section
27. 21.030, Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD).
Section 27.05.010, Intent of the R-2 .zoning district, states that it is a district to
provide ad equate lot areas for u rban residential development. Development within.
this district should have good thoroughfare and be in proximity to community and
neighborhood facilities such as schools, parks and shopping areas. Although much
of the immediate land surrounding the proposed PUD site is agricultural or rural
residential lands, the city of Kalispell is quickly growing north into this area.
Silverbrook Estates, a 586 residential and commercial development, has recently
been approved with the 325 acre site annexed into the city. Silverbrook Estates is
located approximately r/ mile north of this project. A proposal for a "lifestyle center"
incorporating commercial office, ce, retail and a mix of residential housing has been
discussed for the land immediately south of the project site. With recent
annexations and upcoming development proposals in this area, the proposed
development at 4.4 units an acre would provide a mix o, f' housing types within close
proximity to community and neighborhood facilities. Me planning department
would encourage higher densities within close proximity to community and
neighborhood facilities.
0
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created
in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a nlininum lot size of 6,000
square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a
townhouse lot.
The proposed reduction in lot sizes would allow the overall density of the
subdivision to increase. As stated above, the planning department does not have a
problem with the increase in density for the R-2 .zoning district in this particular
area.. The PUD would create smaller lots, however, the developers have offset the
smaller lots by creating larger lots, 113 of an acre and larger, along the northern
and eastern project boundaries. These larger lots would abut existing tots within
the Ponderosa subdivision and provide for a transition from the smaller single
family and townhouse lots within the project site to the larger r/ acre to I acre lots
within the Ponderosa subdivision. In addition, the project proposes 15.I acres of
open space and park area totaling approximately 19% o, f the site.
3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R--2
zoning district)
This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration of 2
or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration. of 2 or more
attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit
be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that
the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use.
Townhouse lots are a conditionally permitted use within the R-2 zoning district. The
proposed PUD would allow 29 townhouse lots or roughly 8 percent of the total
number of dwelling units proposed as part of the Valley Ranch project. The
developers have included in the project proposal 15.1 acres of open space and
parkland. Planning staff would consider the amount of proposed open space and
parkland a reasonable offset to permit the 29 townhouse lots as part of the project
proposal.
4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2
zoning district)
The miniLmum lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is
requesting the minimum lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single
family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots.
The reduced lot widths would apply to the smaller, interior lots within the
subdivision. Planning staff does not have a problem with the reduced tot widths as
the developer has placed the larger lots which conform to the R-2 zoning district
adjacent to existing large residential lots in the Ponderosa subdivision..
Furthermore, the developer has widened the corner lots in order to accommodate the
side corner setbacks required under the zoning code. The sidecomer setbacks are
9
greater in width than side setbacks and can be problematic if not taken into account
during the design of future homes.
S. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Minimum yard setbacks in the
R-2 zoning district)
The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and
rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to
10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots within the
subdivision. A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested
on all lots except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and
eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-1 6 and 179--204 as shown on the
Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development) . A 5-foot rear yard setback is also
proposed on all lots with alley access. The 10--foot rear setback would still apply
to those lots without alley access
The planning department does not have a problem with the reduced setbacks for
homes on the individual lots. The setbacks proposed as part of the PUD are more
conducive to the smaller, urban scale development the developer is trying to
achieve. However, the 10 foot side corner setback and 5-foot rear yard setback
would not apply to garages. Existing developments in the city have proved
problematic when garages are allowed within 10 feet of the side corner property
boundary. The potential to park in front of the garage is high which often times
results in a car or truck extending over the adjacent sidewalk. This same problem
can be extended to the garages setback Just S feet from the alley. A car parking in
front of the garage would extend into the travel lane of the alley. A 5-foot setback
would work for a garage off of an alley if the garage is side loaded wherein the
garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of perpendicular.
6. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R_2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning
district)
The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with
up to 120 units be permitted within the R--2 zoning district. Currently assisted
and independent living facilities are not permitted or conditionally permitted
within the R-2 zoning district.
Assisted and independent living facilities are currently permitted as a conditional
use within the low and medium density residential apartment zoning districts and
the I- 1 (Health Care) zoning district. The proposed assisted and independent living
facility would take up an area approximately 4. 6 acres or roughly 6 percent o, f' the
entire site. The assisted and independent living facility would provide options for
residents in the area that may want to rive close to family residing in homes to the
south or east within the same subdivision. Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy,
Goal l states, "Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the
needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location."
The incorporation of the assisted and independent living facility into the overall
project would help the PUD achieve this goat.
10
Upon reviewing the PUD proposal the Fire Department and Building Department
recommended that an automatic fire suppression system be required as part of
construction for the assisted and independent living facility. Me building and fire
codes may not require it depending on the size of the future building and tape of
construction, however, the departments felt that requiring the developer to include
an automatic fire suppression system in the building's design would help to
alleviate life safety issues. Furthermore, the Planning Department is recommending
that future design of the facility incorporate a public transportation stop since many
of the residents within the facility may not be driving.
Because of the lack of specific detail provided for the assisted living facility., the
owners shall submit an amendment to the PUD specifically addressing architecture,
access, parking, landscaping and screening and other impacts as deemed
appropriate by the staff.
Figure 1: View of the project site looking north towards whitefish. Highway 93 is on
the left side of the picture. The Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and existing homes
within the Ponderosa subdivision are in the background.
The proposed PUD is deemed to be in the public interest because it provides housing
options in an area of the city for which the type of density proposed has been
anticipated.
2. The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development
project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of
the common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and
function of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling
types proposed in the plan;
The PUD plan calls out 15.1 acres of open space and parkland throughout the 80.7 acre
site. The 15.1 acres is in the form of neighborhood parks, perimeter buffers and accent
areas at project gateways. The application states that the open space areas will be
11
governed by a homeowner's association with portions of the large open space/park areas
offered to the City of Kalispell for public park space.
The Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development plan shows seven areas labeled on the plan
as park area. 'These park areas range in size from approximately 6,400 square feet to
close to three acres in size. The park areas, as shown on the plan, are spread
throughout the proposed project with a 20--foot wide buffer area located along the
eastern and northern boundaries of the site to provide some separation from the project
site and existing rural residential and agricultural tracts of land. One of the larger park
areas proposed is adjacent to the parr area of the Ponderosa subdivision. The
Ponderosa park is privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The
developer has proposed a large park area next to the existing park within the Ponderosa
subdivision to allow for a generous sued open space transition between two residential
developments.
The proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland is adequate to provide for the
active and passive recreational uses within the residential PUD. The PUD request would
allow 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 80 assisted living units and 40
independent living units; a total of 353 dwelling units on the project site if the PUD is
approved. Section 3.19(A) (2) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations requires the
subdivider to dedicate to the City a cash or land dedication equal to 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit when residential densities in a proposed subdivision exceed 11,880 square
feet per dwelling unit. This equates to a cash or land dedication equal to 10.59 acres.
Although the assisted and independent living units technically would not be included in
this calculation because no land is being subdivided to accommodate those units, the
PUD still requires the city to address the open space needs of the development as a
whole. Therefore, these units have been included in the open space review.
The proposed 15.1 acres exceeds ghat would be required under subdivision regulations
and can be considered appropriate for the amount of dwelling units proposed. However,
of the 15.1 acres proposed as open space and parkland, at a mrimum, 10.59 acres
should be incorporated as parkland meeting the parkland requirements in the Kalispell
Subdivision Regulations along with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Director. Not only shall this land be included as parkland but improved to function as a
parr with improvements to be proposed by the developer and reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
The Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the proposed PUD parr plan and had
the following comments on the project. The Department recommends that when a
subdivision is proposed the park areas should be condensed from seven down to two
park areas which would serve an active recreation function in the subdivision. The
Department felt that should the city accept the larger park areas, as stated in the
application, maintaining two larger parks would be more economical than maintaining
several smaller parrs. The Department added that the 20-Moot buffer areas along the
perimeter of the project site may be counted towards the parkland requirements if a trail
system is provided which connects the residential units throughout the project with the
parkland areas.
In addition, the Department felt that the proposed park area adjacent to Highway 93
would not be counted towards the overall parkland needs of the subdivision due to its
location and undulating topography. The planning department would recommend that
12
this area remain as it provides additional open space within the overall PUD and, as
stated in the application, would make a great site for passive recreation and excellent
views of the valley floor and beyond. The open space area also provides a noise barrier
for future residents to the east of the open space and Highway 93.
Figure 2: View of the open space/parkland adjacent to Highway 93 looking south
towards Kalispell. Highway 93 is just outside the picture frame on the right.
The Kalispell Growth Policy, Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, Policy 3.1. i
recommends a minimum 100-150 foot impact area be provided for major entrances. The
PUD proposes a 50-"foot setback as well as a passive park area along the project's
Highway 93 frontage. Fifty foot setbacks for minor entrances are recommended in the
growth policy however Policy 2.c of the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment
identifies Whitefish Stage from West Reserve Drive to Birch Grove as a minor entrance
way. Therefore, a condition on the PUD will require the impact area along Highway 93
to be expanded to a mm' mum of 100 feet. This would add approximately 30,000 square
feet (0. 7f of an acre) in addition to the proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland.
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 water and sewer to the site will be required to serve the development.
The application states that an 8-inch water main will be installed as part of the internal
water distribution system. The 8-inch water main will connect to a future major
transmission pipeline to be constructed along the east side of the Highway 93 right-of-
way to service the Siverbrook development located north of the project site.
The application also states that sewage collection will be provided by an 8-inch diameter
or larger gravity sewer collection main that will drain to a pump station. The pressure
main from the pump station will convey the sewage to the future new interceptor that
will be installed along the east side of Highway 93 to serge the Silverbrook subdivision.
13
The General Layout for Water, Sewer and Storm Water for the proposed project indicates
a sewage lift station would be located in the proposed parr area immediately south of
lots 70 -76. Due to the visual presence and fencing accompanying a typical lift station a
recommended condition of approval for the PUD would require a landscaping plan be
provided as part of the preliminary plat of the future subdivision and implemented prior
to final plat approval. The landscaping would help to screen the lift station from
residents, pedestrians and vehicular traffic conning into and out of the subdivision.
Storm water management will be required to be handled and retained on site. The storm
water layout plan indicates a number of underground storm water detention areas will
be utilized within the park areas throughout the project site. If the park areas are
required to be condensed, then the storm water plan will need to be modified
accordingly.
The developer hired WGM Group, Inc. of Missoula to conduct a traffic impact study for
the proposed project. The traffic impact study determined weekday average daily traffic
to be approximately 2,600 vehicles trips. The majority of these trips during peak traffic
hours are anticipated to travel south of the project site.
As a result of the traffic impact study the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development layout
shows two access points along Highway 93 that would be 3/4 turning movements at this
time (allowing left and right -turns in and right --turns out, but prohibiting left turns out
for traffic to travel southbound on Highway 93) . A full movement intersection onto
Highway 93, which would allow traffic to travel south from the project site, is not
proposed because of the poor level of service for this turning movement. Due to the
access limitations to the site the traffic impact study recommends a connection with the
commercially zoned property immediately south of the project site when the site is
developed. A connection to the south would provide the project site with a connection
with Rose crossing and a potential future signalized intersection of Rose Crossing and
Highway 93. The project proposal also includes future roadway connections to the east
and south as well as a road right-of-way dedication to tracts 2BAA and 2BA located west
of the site between the project site and Highway 93.
Based on the traffic impact study, city staff is recommending that a condition of the PUD
require the future subdivision on this site not be given final plat approval until a
connection is made to the south or east which provides a full movement intersection.
The access to the south would be through a potential commercial site and connect with
Highway 93 as stated in the traffic impact study. To the east a future road connection is
possible through existing agricultural land with a road intersection at Whitefish Stage.
In either case, the future roadway connection will need to be constructed to city
standards and be adequate to handle the volume of traffic generated by this
development and subsequent development in the immediate area.
The project includes approximately 2.7 miles of internal roadways constructed to city
design standards. However, the developers have opted to design the roads with 7-foot
wide boulevards instead of the standard 5-foot boulevards. The project design also
includes the use of alleys on the smaller detached single-family lots and the townhouse
lots. With the use of alleys planning staff is recommending the power, phone, natural
gas and cable television lines normally placed just outside the road right-of-way instead
be located within the alley right-of-way. This would place potential electrical and phone
14
pedestals in the alley preventing the street sides of the lots from being obscured with
utility boxes and pedestals.
The proposed R-2 zoning as well as the proposed PUD amendments still require housing
setbacks and height limitations to provide for adequate light and air within the project
proposal. Design guidelines have been included to provide housing standards to
maintain the visual quality of the entire project.
The park areas and open space area will provide the recreational amenity within the
development. 'These facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association with the larger parks within the project being offered to the city to own and
maintain.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
The project is proposed in a rural area of Flathead County with existing rural residential
development immediately north of the project site. There are also several businesses
located along Highway 93 immediately west and north of the site. Development of the
80.7 acre project site has the potential to impact existing residences of the Ponderosa
subdivision located north of the project site. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural
neighborhood platted in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa
subdivision vary between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. For decades residents in the Ponderosa
subdivision have lived in a relatively quiet rural setting but as the city grows northward it is
reasonable to expect city densities to accompany this northward expansion. The developers
have tried to offset some of the housing density impacts by incorporating larger lots, varying
between 15,000t square feet to 30,000f square feet, adjacent to the Ponderosa
subdivision and proposing a park area next to the existing homeowners park in Ponderosa.
The developer has also proposed a 20-foot wide open space corridor between the
proposed lots and the existing lots within the Ponderosa subdivision thereby creating a
greater setback from future houses within Valley Ranch to existing homes within
Ponderosa.
For the past 5 years the City of Kalispell has been experiencing tremendous growth outward
from its city limits. Along the Highway 93 corridor large commercial subdivisions have been
approved allowing larger, "big box" retailers to locate on the northern end of Kalispell. A new
high school is currently under construction approximately 1 1/2 miles to the southwest of the
project site. The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the 80.7t acre
project area as Suburban Residential for which the map provides a density not to exceed 4
dwellings per gross acre. This Suburban Residential land use designation was designed to
lessen the impacts future city growth may have on surrounding agricultural lands and rural
residential development.
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;
The application states that a phasing plan will be developed as soon as access
connections are developed to facilitate a left turn access to Kalispell. The left turn
access depends in large part on the development schedule of the property immediately
15
south of the project site. The developer is requesting that as soon as the connection to
Rose Crossing can be made to facilitate a left turn movement south. on Highway 93, the
future development of Valley Ranch will proceed as phased preliminary and final plats.
The developer has therefore not provided development phasing at this time.
Although planning staff acknowledges the development constraints on the property and
the developer's dependence on future projects located to the south, the proposed PUD, if
approved, should have a sunset date. Planning staff recommends that the PUD be valid
for a period of three years with the option for a one year extension. within this time the
developers would need to obtain approval of a preliminary plat for the project site.
When a preliminary plat is submitted and approved for the site the preliminary plat will
have up to three years to complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent
phases, if applicable. However, the PUD will expire if, after preliminary plat approval is
given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated tirn.eframes (i.e. a maximum of 7
years from the PUD approval date) .
5. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
No other specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning ordinance can be identified based
upon the information submitted with the application other than those addressed in the
beginning of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt staff report A-07--5 and recommend that initial zoning of the 80.7 acre site
be R-2 as shown on the zoning district map for the property.
11. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt staff report KPUD-07-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell
City Council that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the conditions
listed below:
General Conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
following plans, materials and other specifications as well as any additional
conditions associated with the PUD as approved by the city council. -
Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5-07
• Valley Ranch PUD plan indicting lots sizes and land use types dated 3-5-07.
Note: The approved PUD allows the density to increase in the R.-2 district as
well as allow a reduced lot size and width to accommodate the proposed PUD
plan.
2. Townhouse lots with a configuration. of 2 or more units shall be permitted within
the Valley Ranch PUD however all garages shall be alley loaded.
3. An assisted and independent living facility shall be permitted within the Valley
Ranch PUD. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the assisted and
independent living facility the developer shall submit an amendment to the Valley
16
Ranch PUD for a public hearing showing the location, size, elevations,
landscaping and parking associated with the assisted and independent living
facility. Note: The building shall incorporate four sided architecture and an on -
site public transit location. Building plans shall incorporate the use of an
automatic fire suppression system.
4. Setbacks shall be amended as follows and shall apply only to the house unless
otherwise specified:
a. 10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots
b. 5 foot side setbacks on all lots except the larger detached singe family lots
lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-1 6
and 179--204 as shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development)
C. 5-foot rear yard setback for the garage only on all lots with alley access.
The 10-foot rear setback shall still apply to those lots without alley access.
Note: In order for a garage to utilize the 5-foot setback the garage doors
shall be side loaded (garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of
perpendicular)
5. The impact area along Highway 93 shall be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet.
Within this area the developer shall incorporate a combination of berming,
landscaping and a 10-foot wide bike/pedestrian path along the proj ect's Highway
93 frontage. A detailed plan of this impact area shall be provided with the
submittal of a preliminary plat for the project site.
6. Any parking or signage within the impact area shall only be permitted as an
amendment to the Valley Ranch PUD. Signs shall be limited to monument signs
and shall be located in the rear portion of the impacted area, other free standing
signs shall not be allowed.
7. A landscaping plan for any lift stations on the project site shall be provided with
the submittal of a preliminary plat. The landscaping plan shall incorporate a
combination of trees and shrubs with a density adequate to screen the lift station
from public view.
S. The future subdivision on the project site shall not be given final plat approval
until a street connection is made to the south or east which provides a full
movement intersection in order for traffic to travel south on either Highway 93 or
Whitefish Stage Road.
9. The open space and parkland shall comprise of 15.1 acres plus the additional
land area needed to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer along Highway 93. The
area shown on the approved PUD plan as parkland adjacent to Highway 93 shall
remain in size and shape as shown on the approved plan. Exact size and location
of other parks shown on the approved PUD plan shall be determined by the city
council with recommendations from. the Parks and Recreation Director and
planning board.
10. Upon submitting a preliminary plat for the project site the developer shall submit
a parks improvement plan to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director.
Of the 15.1 + acres of open space and parkland a minimum of 10.59 acres shall
be incorporated as parkland.
17
11. The power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within
the alley right-of-way. Where an alley is not adjacent to the lot the power, phone,
natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within a separate 5-foot
easement outside of the road might -of --way easement.
12. street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full cutoff
lens so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties.
13. Approval of the planned unit development shall be valid for a period of three years
from the date of approval with the possibility of a one-year extension to be
granted by the city council. Within this time the developers shall obtain approval
of a preliminary plat for the project site. when a preliminary plat is submitted
and approved for the site the preliminary plat will have up to three years to
complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent phases, if
applicable. The Valley Ranch PUD shall expire if, after preliminary plat approval
is given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes
18
5ioteuA e, Asvcixto
Land Planning &Landscape Architecture
385 Golf Couree Drive
Columbia Falls, Montana 59912
Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
Kalispell Planning and Zoning Office
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Date: Wednesday, April 25,.2007
RE: Minor Modifications, Valley Ranch PUD
Dear Sean:
Please find attached 10 copies of the Valley Ranch PUD Plan with minor modifications as per our
conversation with you and Tom last week. The minor modifications are as follows:
1) The lots on the northwest (middle) corner of the site have been converted from 6250-6500
square foot lots to 10,000+ square foot lots (Lots 17-44).
2) The highway buffer setback adjacent to the assisted and independent living site has been
increased from 50 feet to 10.0 feet.
3) The 20 foot strip between the south side of Ponderosa Subdivision has been increased to
35 feet along with the addition of a 100 foot open space break and increased setbacks to
accommodate existing tree stands.
4) The park area adjacent to Ponderosa's Homeowner's Park has been increased in size to 3.5 acres
to respond to the Park's Departments desire to have a larger park over 3 acres.
5) The open space buffer between the Wolford Property and the south side of Valley Ranch has
been increased.
6 i A 20 foot storm drainage easement has been located in the northeast corner of the site
between Lots 7 and S.
7) The open space dedication has increased from 15.1 acres to 16.75 acres.
8) The overall single-family lot count has been lowered by 11 lots (204 to 193).
9) The independent living unit count has been lowered by 20 units.
Thanks for your attention. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce F. Lutz A.S. L.A.
Cc: Gateway Properties
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2nd Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PROJECT NAME Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Gateway Properties Inc.
2. MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. Box 8776
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, MT 59904 PHONE: Brent Card 249-7317
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT:
4. NAME:
5. MAIL ADDRESS:
6. CITY/ STATE/ZIP: PHONE:
7. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
8. MAIL ADDRESS:
9. CITY/ STATE/ZIP: PHONE:
If there are others who should be notified during the review process, please list those.
Sitescape Associates, Attn: Bruce Lutz, 892-3492, Box 1417, Columbia FaUs
Check One:
X Initial PUD proposal
Amendment to an existing PUD
A. Property Address:
B. Total Area of Property: 80.68 Acres
C. Legal description including section, township & range:
Tract 2 in NESW, Tract 3 and Tract 2BC, Section 19, T29N, R21 W,
Flathead County, Montana,
D . The present Zoning of the above property is: Flathead County SAG 10
1
E. Please provide the following information in a narrative format with supporting
drawings or other format as needed:
a. An overall description of the goals and objectives for the development of
the project.
The proposed Valley Ranch development is situated on 80.58 acres of land
south of the e2dsting Ponderosa residential subdivision, east of the Big
Mountain Golf Club, north of Bucky wolford's proposed Glacier Town
Center, and northeast of the Montana National Guard facilities. The
proposed Planned Unit Development calls for 204 residential lots, 29
townhouse lots and a future assisted and independent living facility with
up to 120 units. The perimeter of the development adjacent to the
Ponderosa development is proposed with lots that average 1/3 acre in
size. This complies with a request by the Ponderosa Homeowner's Board of
Directors. Lots on the internal areas of Valley Ranch range from 6000
square feet to 9000 square feet and are largely alley access/loaded. The 29
townhouse lots range in size from 2540 to 3740 square feet*
Also proposed for future development is an assisted and independent
Living facility in the northwestern corner of the site on 4.5 acres. This
project will come back to the planning board and city council as an
amended PUD when the developers are ready to proceed with the facility.
The proposed 15.1 acre open space area will be governed by the
homeowner's association with portions of the large open space / park areas
offered to the City of Kalispell for public park space.
b. In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a
schedule showing the time within phase will be completed.
A phasing plan will be developed for Valley Ranch as soon as access
connections are developed to facilitate left turn access to Kalispell. This
depends in large part on the schedule for the development to the south of
Valley Ranch. As soon as the connection to Rose Crossing and facilitation
of left turns to Kalispell materializes, the development of Valley Ranch
will proceed as phased preliminary and fio.al plats. It would be
presumptuous to pre -determine development phasing at this time.
C. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations including but not limited to density, setbacks and use, and
the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the
public interest;
Departures from Kalispell R-2 standards facilitated by the PUD overlay are
as follows:
Density (gross per acre) = 4.5 du/acreProposed = No Change
Townhouse, attached (2 or more) = CUP Proposed = permitted w/ PUD
Minimum Lot Area = 9600 SF Proposed = 6000 SF
Minimum Lot width = 70 LF Proposed = 48 LF(S-F Lots), 25 LF(TH Lots)
Minimum Yard (Setbacks).
Front = 20 Ft Proposed = No Change
Side 10 Ft Proposed = 5 Ft or 10 Ft (Lots 179-204)
Rear = 10 Ft Proposed = 5 Ft (w/alley), 101 (w/o alley)
Side Corner = 20 Ft Proposed = 10 Ft
Maximum Building Height = 35 Ft Proposed. = No Change
Permitted Lot Coverage = 35% Proposed = No Change
Assisted/Independent Living Units Proposed Future PUD Amendment
The above departures from Kalispell R-2 zoning and subdivision standards
adhere very closely to the land use goals set forth on the Kalispell Growth
Policy Map 2006 and text that calls for suburban residential development
in this area at a density up to four units per acre.
d. The nature and extent of the common open space in the project and the
provisions for maintenance and conservation of the common open space;
and the adequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms
of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan;
Valley Ranch proposes to allocate 15.1 acres of the total area of the
project to open space in the for of neighborhood parrs, perimeter buffers
and accent areas at project gateways. The smaller scale open space
dedications will be part of the Valley Ranch Homeowners's Association
open space while the larger in -holdings will either be offered for public
parks or be maintained as private parks. One of the lager internal parks is
located adjacent to Ponderosa's main homeowners' park thus making for a
generous sized open space transition between two residential
developments. The park area south of the proposed assisted/independent
living facility is a special site with mature trees and interesting
topography. It will make a great site for passive recreation and excellent
views of the valley floor and beyond.
e. The manner in which services will be provided such as water, sewer,
storm water management, schools, roads, traffic management,
pedestrian access, recreational facilities and other applicable services
and utilities.
Please see the attached preliminary water, sewer and storm drainage plan
prepared by Carver Engineering.
Water supply, sewage collection, storaro Water collection/ disposal,
roadways, sidewalks, and park facilities Will be designed and constructed
to City of Kalispell Public Works standards. These facilities are to be
installed by the Developer at his expense, granted to the City of Kalispell
after completion of construction, and owned, operated and maintained by
the City permanently.
The internal water distribution system will be a network of 8-inch
diameter water mains. This distribution network will connect to and
receive its supply from the future major transmission pipeline to be
3
constructed along the east side of the US Highway 93 right-of-way to
service the Silverbrook development further north of this project. Fire
hydrants will be installed at street intersections and, between
intersections, at intervals as required by Kalispell Fire Department,
Individual water services will be provided to each lot.
Sewage collection will be provided by 8-inch diameter or larger gravity
sewer collection mains that drain to a single duplex sewage pump station.
Manholes will be provided at intersections, changes in alignment and
grade, and at intervals of no more than 400 feet along straight runs. The
pressure main from the pump station will convey the sewage to the future
new interceptor that is to be installed along the east side of the US
Highway 93 right-of-way for the Silver brook development.
Roadways will be paved and curb and gutters are to be provided. The site
and roadways will be graded to drain runoff to designed low points, where
the storm water runoff will be collected in catch basins. Storm water will
be conveyed through buried pipelines. Rather than collect, convey and
concentrate all the runoff from the entire site at a single point, storm
water treatment will be decentralized. A number of treatment and
disposal sites will be provided in open spaces scattered throughout the
site. Each system will serve only a part of project area.
Roadways will be designed and constructed to City of Kalispell standards,
including paved roadways, concrete curb and gutter, landscaped
boulevards. street trees, concrete sidewalks, and underground dry utilities
(electric, telephone and cable TV) installed behind the sidewalk along the
front of the lots an facilitated by the creation of a utility easement.
Connectivity of the roads with surrounding properties is an important
consideration for the success of this development as well as surrounding
development. Valley Ranch proposes two connections each to the west,
south and east boundaries of the project to facilitate the flow of vehicular
traffic back and forth. Due to grades and the fact that Ponderosa is already
developed, there will not be an opportunity to extend connectivity to the
north.
Also, please see the attached Traffic Impact Study prepared by wGM
Group. The site is near new shopping centers as well as a regional athletic
complex (KYAC), the new Glacier High School, Flathead Valley Community
College and is across the highway from an existing golf course. It is also
just south of an existing residential development by the name of
Ponderosa that was conceived during the late 1970's.
It is important to note that the two ingress / egress points on Highway 93
from Valley Ranch are proposed as right turn in and right turn out only.
Valley Ranch relies on connectivity with the wolford Project in order to
achieve a roadway link with a through road that connects Rose Crossing
with. Highway 93. It is also assumed that there will be a traffic signal at
the Rose Crossing and Highway 93 intersection that will facilitate a left
hand turn towards Kalispell.
0
f. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development
project upon the neighborhood an which it is proposed to be established
The area proposed for the Valley Ranch project has been transitioning
from rural and semi -rural suburban development to suburban residential
for the past several years. The Kalispell Growth Policy shows the subject
property located firmly in the suburban residential growth zone around
the City's fringe. old and new developments such as Ponderosa and the
newly proposed Glacier Town Center are examples of this trend. The
development of the Silverbrook PUD in the vicinity of the proposed
Church Drive Interchange will facilitate the extension of Kalispell's water
and sewer infrastructure past and adjacent to Valley Ranch's west
perimeter. Valley Ranch will provide a good land use transition from the
more aggressive Glacier Town Center Project to the existing Ponderosa
Subdivision.
g. How the plan provides reasonable consideration to the character of the
neighborhood and the peculiar suitability of the property for the
proposed use.
The proposed plan conforms to the stipulations set forth in the current
Kalispell Growth Policy calling for suburban residential development not
exceeding four dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed plan provides
for efficient use of land for residential housing While encourag3.n.g the
generous dedication of common and comprehensively maintained open
space.
h. where there are more intensive uses or incompatible uses planned
within the project or on the project boundaries, how will the impacts of
those uses be mitigated.
The plan for Valley Ranch incorporates a twenty foot wide buffer around
the entire site. The project open space will be landscaped and maintained
by a homeowner's association set forth in the attached covenants. The
more intensive uses within the project that are facilitated by the PUD
overlay are the 29 townhouse lots and the assisted/ independent Hving
facility that is located east of a fifty foot buffer along Highway 93. The
townhouse lots act a transitional use between external commercial uses
and the internal single-family lots that make up the core of Valley Ranch.
The assisted living/ independent living facility fronts the highway across
from a private golf course. To the north of the future facility is a
veterinary cHnic. The assisted living/ independent Hiving facility will
generate much less traffic than the single-family and townhouse units.
z. How the development plan will further the goals, policies and objectives
of the Kalispell Growth Policy.
The proposed plan is intended to fit within the stipulations set forth in
the Kalispell Growth Policy as revised in August of 2006. The subject area
is designated as "suburban residential" allowing for up to four units per
gross acre. The future assisted/ independent living facility will take the
proposed development just slightly above the 4 unit per acre threshold.
However, the traffic generated by the future living facility will. be
S
considerably less than the adjoining residential development. The Growth
Policy Map also illustrates future north/south and east west
transportation corridors that will disperse traffic and alleviate congestion
m and around the site. 'This project along With the Wolford project will
expedite the expressed goal of extending Rose Crossing from Whitefish
Stage to Highway gS and also the extension of a route north from Rose
Crossing to Valley Ranch through the Wolford Project. Traffic leaving
either project and heading north will have two alternative routes through
Valley Ranch.
j . Include site plans, drawings and schematics with supporting narratives
where needed that includes the following information:
(1). Total acreage and present zoning classifications;
See Plant
(2). zoning classification of all adjoining properties;
See Attached
(3). Density in dwelling units per gross acre;
See Plant
(4). Location, size height and number of stories for buildings
and uses proposed for buildings;
Plans will be submitted for the assisted /independent living
facility in the future accompanying a PUD mods, f ication
applicatiorti.
(5). Layout and dimensions of streets, parking areas,
pedestrian walkways and surfacing;
See PUD and Preliminary Engineering Plans
(6). Vehicle, emergency and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation and control;
See PUD and Preliminary Engineering Plans
(7). Location, size, height, Color and materials of signs;
The dexae lop me nt sig nage will be located on the north side o, f
the main entry roads. The signs will be a monument style
signage utilizing the project logo and made o, f stone and
wood elements usedas landscape accents. The signs wi l l
conform to the Kalispell Sign Ordinance.
(8). Location and height of fencing and/or screening;
No fencing is proposed at this time. A preliminary landscape
plan showing screening and buffering will be submitted as
supplementary information.
(9). Location and type of landscaping;
A preliminary landscape plan showing screening and
buffering will be submitted as supplementary information.
(10). Location and type of open space and common areas;
See PUD Plan
(11). Proposed maintenance of common areas and open. space;
G
See Covenants
(12). Property boundary locations and setback lines
See PUD Plant
(13). Special design standards, materials and / or colors;
See Architectural Standards
(14). Proposed schedule of completions and phasing of the
development, if applicable;
See PUD Plan.
(15). Covenants, conditions and restrictions;
See Covenants
(16). Any other information that may be deemed relevant and
appropriate to allow for adequate review.
SEE ATTACKED PLAM, TRAPPIC IMPACT STUDY and
other supplemental information. Covenants,
Architectural: Standards and a Preliminary Landscape
Flan will be submitted as supplementary information*
If the PUD involves the division of land for the purpose of conveyance, a preliminary
plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the subdivision
regulations.
Please note that the approved final plan, together with the conditions and restrictions
imposed, shall constitute the zoning for the district. No building permit shall be
issued for any structure within the district unless such structure conforms to the
provisions of the approved plan.
The signing of this application signifies that the aforementioned information is true
and correct and grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the
property for routine monitoring and inspection during review process.
(A' lic t Si to e)
6. A r)7
(Date)
PONDEROSA SUBDIVISION
Lo',1 I LOw. ^ 1 Lam, 1 `" e 1
1 r' 2 '3 4 5
t ! 7
Acre - = - — - — — —s 1 a.� •
T, 118 4 19 j 20 � 21 9
4 22 � 23 � � ,
lrldePendent_ r .
KtY
un."1m
vmffv note
aA VW
ail
CKOM c FOa
FAW ROAD
W« a 1=
_„„— OONW" ue
POUWD &W MW
U&M 01*,ft N,MM
raw wo1 r Kw uv WOW
caamoPW
N7tY OR FCGIVLY
Comm 0 MOD a w, AMC Do-
bW1O —OP L.V"CM NN"O.W M M—MN MfYKt
wruta a wr uala.WO UNM vwo.. ecs w "Ca TCX 4
=4 Y= 6W . WYM ro40046�4Yr TO ISY ne IM0 wGtp,
OF Au wits
dlley rcdncn ruu-4-4,)-vi.ag11 4/L0/LVU1 IU.44.Utt HIVI
I A-mo ri
,vw, vv /'I VGl — VV.VI V /-1V1 G7
Total Area in Lots = 41.05 Acres
193 Residential Lots
29 Townhouse Lots
80 Assisted Living Units
20 Independent Living Condos
Total Area in Future Assisted/independent
Living = 4.6 Acres, 3.18 usable
Total Area in Road R. o.W. = 18.2 Acres
Total Length of Roads = 2.5 Miles
Total Area in Paving = 10.55 Acres
Total Area in Parks/Open Space. = 16.75 Acres
Gross Density w/o A&I Living = 2.75 du/acre
Gross Density w/ A&I Living = 3.99 du/acre
Building Setbacks:
Front = 20 Ft
Rear = 5 Ft (w/ Alley), 10' (w/o Alley) 20Ft
on Lots 1-16 and Lots 169-193
Side = 10 Ft Lots 1-16 & 169-193, 5 Ft all others
'? I
/ � � ;�� � 1; r �
Side Comer = 10 Ft
Highway Setback = 100 Ft
I
-`
v
Park Area
��, ` plea p
Pam` �`.,'
1 p
�'P
/ t a2
,
3.5 AcresdP
k�
i o o
�"""N.•�
OANIRL i MaR10N
115 121 r I 127 1 ,33 -
- 11a zz 128 134
tee.. a I _ �-- I -�_
1 117 123 128 135
Jar
il 118124 -� • 138
Z1ee�i+elpileaIL d� 141 ax ,a eu +se re si
L, JLr.L 1-InLn1=
409 r
5' @ 24x36") f Park Area
— — 2.75 Acres
---- — ---��
®
I�
o;
�u
M
�4
,f'
��wrrti
Millis.
r
o roriiii�
t•-n�4
I m
■! 55M0!
1
Vicinity Map
1Y
-�
Db
APR 25 2001
�I •CC
L '
I LIS' LL riAt~iVING uEPARTMEtIT
W YZ SEC. 19, T24N, lZ29W,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA
190
Planned Unit Development
IMP
' ,
Kalispell, Montana
' _ x v
192 - � j j
Developer: Gateway Properties Inc.
Land Planner and Landscape Architect: Sitescape Associates
.441r !
193
Civil Engineer: Carver Engineering
Surveyor. Sam Cordi Surveying��
Geo-technical Consultant: CMG Engineering Inc. Date: 3-5-2007
Revised: 4-23-2007
Valley Ranch
Kalispell, MT
Traffic Impact Study
Prepared for:
Gateway Properties, Inc.
Brent Card
5229 Highway 93 S
Whitefish, MT 59937
February, 2007
ITC M Project # 060830
Submitted by:
*00
WGM GROUP, INC.
ENGINEERING*SURVEYING •PLANNING
3021 Palmer Street
P.C. Box 16027'
Missoula, MT 59808-6027
1140
w
i � +
t
NARK DAME . , "
BALEk
55 F •
■4
■ r
a
a
r
►i wwar �� *�i+' � i�
�i +mow*wv+/wAMwww +i
r •
iiaraRti=arsi•
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page ?
Introduction
Gateway Properties, Inc. proposes to construct a mixed -use development, Valley
Ranch, on the east side of US Highway 93 (US 93) near the north end of Kalispell,
Montana (Figure 1). The proposed development will consist of single family homes,
townhomes, an assisted living center, and independent living units.
There is a large, commercially zoned property just south of the proposed Valley Ranch
development. When that commercial property develops, Rose crossing (a county
road) will be extended west from its current terminus at Whitefish Stage Road to a
new Intersection with US 93. It is anticipated that the future Us 93/Rose Crossing
intersection will be traffic signal controlled. Vehicle access in and out of Valley Ranch
will be from US 93 via two planned %-movement driveways (Figure 2). Roadways
within Valley Ranch will be extended south through the commercial property when it
develops, connecting Valley Ranch with Rose crossing. This will result in signalized
left -turn egress from Valley Ranch to US 93. This connection to Rose crossing will
not be made, and consequently the Valley Ranch subdivision can not be built, until the
commercially zoned property between the subject site and Rose Crossing is
developed. No approvals are currently in place for the commercial property and no
project plans/proposals are currently in the review process.
The property on which the proposed subdivision will be built is approximately 80 acres
in size and is undeveloped. Surrounding properties in the vicinity of the site include a
mix of residential and commercial land uses.
This traffic study was prepared using standard traffic engineering techniques to
evaluate the operational characteristics of the proposed site driveways. A traffic
capacity and level -of -service analysis is presented. completion of the development is
anticipated in 2010, pending development of the commercial property to the south.
Based on discussions with the City of Kalispell Planning Department, engineering
judgment, the significant distance to the nearest major intersections on US 93, WGM
Group, Inc. (WGM) has determined that the study area for this traffic analysis should
be limited to the site driveway intersections with US 93. Some discussion of the future
intersection of US 93 and Rose Crossing is also provided.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 2
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
- -`
Church f]r
Lb
(}�
F
y
7
I
1
F;
Site Area
I
W R"Crwa r.
Atboa Cif
_-_ ..::_. ..; d ft�r� Df
} `+
_ .- - d Ree ne ar
j
E Reeierve Dr
13
.. ....
1
rl
�' ` { 'I
i
f
03
i -
F�
4 � Dr -. _'.._ .. _.
s
_ ...
.'fit: i
... _.. .
f
Hist4
BUf afo Hill
_6W%C,1ub
1ZT
- 2 mike c
i _
]Dmd �rt
WO RO
qJ
x
K, 11spill
. rri Ei"I� f
Palley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Figure 2: Site Plan
T • 17 4%40"�Z, Vq t Ik
r i i
4T y a' iz r
E
13
1 � 14 }
Q I��a>rrr i rcal�
' � I
Preliminary Plat/ Development Plan
Valley Ranch
204 Resklential Lots
29 Townhouse Lots
80 Assisted Living Units
4$ Independent Living Condos
Approx. 15.1 Agnes Park Land & Open Space
Perimeter TraiVExcerclise Course
' �"' f7 M kk , t� • f!/ 1 , NC i M i 1!1 I'M I MQ i SIY j ` W in
4 _ .... _
77
OR 1�"i ... ,RL -...� •- -+rim -._ _+i1k... - � i
�-- .C.,.-,.- M i fEd t!•F tA6 k T►S r +p #
t 4 W k A-1
�„ i11 XO tSf T7i T�L Va
IW U1r 2.`\�O\
Iaw r
..�.r x
_ _ .._...... _._..._ 410
AIL � t
W N ili 1A tM I' 7 sp6 n7 � j
IU
RUC 1
ate. •i `. ry3r
FR � 4 Mt
w pro vm am rn x + 4 mr frr# +rrr r+x .. .. ,IL,,.
j ^ rt ► � JC,, i ..AL.
Page 3
un nwr� rir..�� r.rrn.wr.
Date,: 1-26-2007
valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Existing Traffic Volume
Page 4
To identify existing traffic volumes within the study area, AM and PM peak -periods
manual traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, September 20
and 21, 2006. The AM peak -period counts were conducted between 7:00 and 9:00
AM and the PM peak -period counts were conducted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. The
count data (in Appendix A) was then analyzed to determine the existing peak -hour
traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figure 3 shows the 2006 Existing peak -
hour traffic volumes derived from the traffic counts and used for this report.
North
Legend
AM(PM)
Figure 3: 2006 Existing Traffic Volume
L •J
to,
10,
us
Highway
93
riveway 1
riveway 2
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Adjacent Developments
Page 5
Other planned developments in the vicinity of this project were discussed with the City
of Kalispell Planning Department for possible inclusion in this report. However, the
adjacent developments were not sufficiently outlined at the time of this report to
adequately estimate the impact they may have on traffic operations in the area.
During discussions with the Planning Department it was agreed that other pending
developments in the vicinity would not be analyzed in this report.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
2010 No -Build Traffic Volumes
Page 6
The 2006 existing traffic volumes on US 93 were projected to the study year 2010
using a four -percent -per -year peak -hour -traffic growth rate. This annual growth rate
was calculated based on data from the MDT publication, Traffic By Sections, for US
93 between Grandview Drive and Reserve Drive. (The subject site is actually located
in the next highway segment to the north, but that segment is almost ten miles long
and extends up to Whitefish. The selected segment is short and located just three-
quarter miles south of the site and therefore seems to better represent traffic growth at
the site.) The projected 2010 No -Build traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. These
volumes represent the baseline traffic condition that is projected to exist in 2010
without development of Valley Ranch.
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
North
Le end
AM(PM)
Figure 4: 2010 No -Build Traffic Volume
to,
1.00,
US
Highway
93
riveway 1
riveway 2
Page 7
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 8
Site -Generated Traffic
The proposed Valley Ranch subdivision will consist of approximately 197 single family
homes, 29 townhomes, an 80-bed assisted living center, and a 48-unit independent
living facility. Information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
publication Trip Generation (7th Edition) was used to estimate the number of trips that
will be generated by the proposed development. Table 1 shows the results of the trip_
generation calculations.
Table 1: Valley Ranch Estimated Site -Generated Trips
Land Use
Size
ITE Land
use code
Weekday
Average
Daily
Traffic
AM Peak Hour
Pill Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family Home
294 lots
210
21004
38
114
129
75
Townhouse
29 units
230
224
3
18
15
7
Assisted Living center
80 beds
254
213
7
4
8
10
Independent Livin Facilifty
48 units
252
167
2
2
3
2
TOTAL
-
-
29808
50
'!3
155
94
Assignment of Site -Generated Trips
Existing traffic patterns at the intersection of US 93 and Ponderosa Lane were studied
to identify commuter travel patterns in this area. Based on the established patterns at
this intersection, it is estimated that approximately 80% of site -generated peals -hour
trips will be destined to/from US 93 south of the site, and approximately 20% will be
destined to/from US 93 north of the site.
Due to the proximity of the various site land uses to the site driveways, it is assumed
that all assisted living and independent living trips will use the north driveway, and the
residential trips will split with one-third using the north driveway and two-thirds using
the south driveway.
The site -generated trips from Table 'I were distributed to the roadway network in
accordance with the assumed trip distribution patterns. This resulted in the AM and
PM peak -hour, site -generated trips shown in Figure 5. Again note that the 80% of site
traffic exiting to the south will use a future route through the commercial property
south of the subject site, connecting to Rose crossing. This traffic is not included in
the site -generated trips illustrated in Figure 5.
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Figure 5: Site -Generated Traffic Volume
North
Legend
AM(PM)
US
Highway
93
riveway 1
riveway 2
Page 9
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
2010 Build Traffic Volumes
Page 10
The site -generated traffic was combined with the 2010 No -Build traffic volumes
resulting in the projected 2010 Build traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. These are the
traffic volumes projected to exist on the site driveways in 2010 when Valley Ranch is
complete and fully occupied.
North
Legend
AM(PM)
Figure 6: 2010 Build Traffic Volume
11►
US
Highway
93
riveway 1
riveway 2
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Page 11
Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis of both proposed site driveway intersections was conducted using
the projected 2010 Build traffic volumes developed in this report. The analyses were
performed in accordance with the procedures presented in the !Highway Capacity
Manual, 2000 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The
analyses worksheets are contained in Appendix B.
The analysis procedures result in traffic Level of Service (LOS) rankings from A to F,
with A representing essentially free -flow conditions and F representing undesirable
levels of driver delay. See Appendix c for a description of the various LOS
categories.
As previously discussed, it is anticipated that the traffic exiting Valley Ranch to the
south will do so via a connection across the commercial property south of Valley
Ranch to Rose Grossing. The Valley Ranch generated traffic would then turn left from
Rose Grossing to US Highway 93. It is anticipated that this intersection will be
signalized by the developers of the commercial property when the extension of Rose
Grossing is constructed. The commercial property will contribute a significant amount
of traffic to this left --turn movement. Further, the extension of Rose Grossing to US 93
will result in the diversion of some existing regional traffic onto this left -turn movement.
Overall, the percentage of traffic turning left from Rose Grossing to US 93 originating
from Valley Ranch is expected to be a small percentage of the total traffic on this
movement.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Intersection of US 93 and Site Driveway 1
Existing Conditions
Page 12
This intersection does not currently exist. US 93 is a north/south arterial
highway that consists of two lanes in each direction plus a center two -way -left -
turn lane. Site Driveway 1 is anticipated as a three-quarter movement
It
intersection (left -turns exiting the driveway are prohibited, but all other
movements permitted) with stop -sign control on the driveway approach.
Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis Was conducted for this intersection using the 2010 Build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: US 93 and Site Driveway I Level of Service Summary
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
2010
2010
Budd
Build
Intersection
Approach
delay
LOS
Delay
Los
Southbound
8.9
q4.7
S
Left
Westbound
10.4
B
12.5
B
Right
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle
This intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during all hours.
Malley Ranch Traffic impact Study
Intersection of US 93 and Site Driveway 2
Existing Conditions
Page 13
This intersection does not currently exist. US 93 is a north/south arterial
highway that consists of two lanes in each direction plus a center two -way -left -
turn lane. Site Driveway 2 is anticipated as a three-quarter movement
intersection (left -turns exiting the driveway are prohibited, but ail other
movements permitted) with stop -sign control on the driveway approach.
Capacity �V
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2010 Build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: US 93 and Site Driveway 2 Level of service summary
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
2010
2010
Build
Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Southbound
8.9
A
11.1
B
Left
Westbound
10,5
B
13.9
B
Left1Ri ht
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle
This intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during all hours.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Crash Analys10
is
Page 14
Traffic crash data for US 93 was obtained from the MDT for the five-year period
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. Crash data for one -quarter mile in
both directions from the proposed site were reviewed for this report. Five traffic
incidents occurred within this area during the identified five-year time period.
Of the five incidents, one resulted from loss of control in icy conditions, one involved a
collision with a wild animal, one resulted from an improper right -turn (apparently from
the wrong lane), one was a rear -end accident resulting from following too closely, and
one resulted in cargo from one vehicle causing damage to a second vehicle. None of
these accidents occurred as a result of correctable deficiencies in the highway.
The proposed driveway locations for the Valley Ranch subdivision are located at
points on US 03 with excellent intersection sight distance in both directions and a
center two-way left -turn lane, both of which should help to minimize the risk to traffic
crashes at these locations.
Valley Ranch Trafc Impact Study
Page 15
Report Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The discussion and analyses contained in this report can be summarized as follows:
• Gateway Properties, Inc. proposes to construct a mixed -use development on
the east side of US 93 near the north end of Kalispell. The proposed
development will consist of single family homes, townhomes, an assisted living
center, and independent living units.
• Access to the proposed development will be from US 93 for all entering traffic
and traffic exiting to the north. Traffic exiting to the south is not proposed at the
site driveways due to poor LOS for this movement. Instead, a connection
across the commercially zoned properly south of the subject site is anticipated
when that property develops, providing a connection to Rose crossing and the
future signalized intersection of Rose crossing and US 93.
• The two driveway intersections were analyzed in this report as Y-movement
driveways allowing left and right --turns in and right -turns out, but prohibiting left -
turns out. Under this configuration the driveways are each projected to operate
at very good LOS under the forecasted 2010 Build traffic volumes.
No identifiable traffic crash patterns on US 93 are noted in the vicinity of the
proposed site driveways. Sight distance is very good in both directions at the
proposed site driveways.
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Appendix A
Appendix A
Traffic Count Data
Manual Traffic Count
Intersection of Hwy 93 and Ponderosa
Dr,/White Pine Dr.
V
Kalispell, MT
PHF _
v * 4
�s
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Peak AM Period
WHITE
PINE DR. --Eastbound
PONDEROSA —Westbound
US 93 NORTH--Southbound
US 93 NORTH
--Northbound
Interval
Hourly
Left
Thru Right
Trucks
Left
Thru
Right Trucks
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Total
Total
7:00 7:15 0
0 0
0
7
0
1
0
0
80
1
2
1
70
1
3
161
7:15 7:30 0
0 2
0
13
0
1
0
0
107
1
2
0
85
1
2
210
7:30 7,45 0
0 2
0
20
0
3
0
4
181
2
5
2
112
1
6
327
7:45 8:00 1
0 2
0
18
0
2
0
0
158
1
4
2
132
2
7
318
1016
8:00 8,15 1
0 1
0
11
0
5
0
2
104
1
2
2
120
1
6
248
1103
8:15 8:30 2
0 2
0
1
0
3
0
1
118
1
9
4
98
1
10
231
1124 <.— Peak Hour
8:30 8.45 1
0 1
0
5
0
0
0
1
130
3
8
2
116
1
9
260
1057
8:45 9,00 2
0 4
0
4
0
0
0
1
138
0
9
1
100
5
13
255
994
Peak Hour 4
0 7
0
50
0
13
0
7
561
5
20
10
462
5
29
Volume
7:30 to 8:30
PHF =
0.859327
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Peak PM Period
WHITE PINE DR. —Eastbound
PONDEROSA --Westbound
US 93 NORTH--Southbound
US 93 NORTH --Northbound
Interval
Hourly
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Left
Thru
Right
Trucks
Total
Total
4:00
4:15
1
0
4
0
4
0
2
0
3
149
0
5
2
174
10
6
349
4:15
4:30
1
0
5
0
6
0
3
0
4
136
1
7
2
119
6
3
283
4:30
4:45
1
0
3
0
6
0
4
0
1
126
2
4
2
160
2
12
307
4:45
5:00
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
152
1
3
2
174
10
3
345
1284
5:00
515
3
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
0
158
0
4
5
165
9
0
352
1287
5:15
5:30
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
164
1
4
4
214
23
4
414
1418
5:30
5:45
2
0
5
0
6
0
1
0
4
165
0
2
2
169
10
3
364
1475 <-- Peak Hour
5:45
6:00
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
149
0
3
1
147
8
1
314
1444
Peak Hour
8
0
12
0
13
0
8
0
6
639
2
13
13
722
52
10
Volume
4:45 to 5:45
PHI =
0.8907
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Appendix B
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix B
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
US 93 and Site Driveway 1
Appendix B
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2
Two -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 1/18/2007
Analysis Time Period.: Peak AM Hour
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 Build
Project ID:
East/West Street: Driveway 1
North/South Street: US Highway 93
Intersection -Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound
Southbound.
Movement 1 2
3
14
5 5
L T
R
L
T R
Volume 575
18
5
728
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR. 638
20
5
808
Percent Heavy Vehicles --_
__
0
..
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 2 0
1 2
Configuration T TR
L T
Upstream Signal? No
No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Eastbound
Movement 7 8
9
10
11 12
L T
R
L
T R
Volume
10
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
11
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
Percent Grade M 0
0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes 1
Configuration R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level
of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound
Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8
9
10 11 12
Lane Con f i g L
R f
v (vph) 5
11
C(m) ivphi 939
673
v/c 0.01
0.02
95%- queue length 0.02
0.05
Control Delay 8.9
10.4
LOS A
B
Approach Delay 10.4
Approach LOS
B
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 1/18/2007
Analysis Time Period: Peak PM Hour
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 Build
Project ID:
East/West Street: Driveway 1
North/South Street: US Highway 93
Intersection orientation: NS
Study period. (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound
Southboun.d
Movement 1 2
3
4
5 6
L T
R
L
T R
Volume 931
48
1.2
796
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1034
53
13
884
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
- --
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 2 0
1 2
Configuration T TR
L T
Upstream Signal? No
No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Eastbound
Movement 7 8
9
10
11 12
L T
R
[ L
T R
Volume
8
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR.
8
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
Percent Grade (%- ) 0
0
Flared. Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes 1
Configuration R
Delay, Queue Length, and
Level
of Service
Approach NB SB westbound
Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8
9
10 11 12
Lane Can f i g L
R
v (vph) 13
8
C tmi (vph) 649
488
v/c 0.02
0.02
95% queue length 0.06
0.05
Control Delay 10.7
12.5
LOS B
B
Approach Delay 12.5
Approach LOS
B
Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
US 93 and Site Driveway 2
Appendix B
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 1/ 18 / 2 0 0 7
Analysis Time Period: Peak AM Hour
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 Build
Project ID:
East /West"Street: Driveway 2
North/South Street: US Highway 93
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study
period. (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound
Southbound
Movement 1 2
3
4
5 6
L T
R
L
T R
Volume 576
22
5
723
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 540
24
5
803
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
-- - - -
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channel i z ed?
Lanes 2 0
1 2
Configuration T TR
L T
Upstream Signal? No
No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Eastbound
Movement 7 8
9
10
11 12
L T
R
L
T R
Volume
17
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
18
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
Percent Grade t % } 0
0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes 1
Configuration R
Delay, Queue Length, and
Level
of Service
Approach NB SB westbound
Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7
8
9
10 11 12
Lane Conf ig L
R
v (vph) 5
18
C (m) tvph3 935
670
v/c 0.01
0.03
95% queue length 0.02
0.08
Control Delay 8.9
10.5
LOS A
B
Approach Delay
10.5
Approach LOS
B
HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 1/18/2007
Analysis Time Period: Peak PM Hour
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Units: U . S . Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 Build
Project ID:
East/West Street: Driveway 2
North/South Street: US Highway 93
Intersection orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound.
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R I L T R.
Volume
968
76
19
777
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR,
1075
84
21
863
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
- - - --
Median Type/Storage
Undivided
j
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2 0
1 2
Configuration
T TR
L T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
Minor Street: Approach
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
10
11 12
L
T
R
L
T R
Volume
11
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
12
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
Percent Grade ( %- )
0
0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes
1
Configuration
R
Delay,
Queue Length, and Level
of Service
Approach NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement 1
4
7
8
9
10 11 12
Lane C on f i g
L
R
v (vph)
21
12
C (m) (vph)
610
463
v/c
0.03
0.03
95% queue length
0.11
0.08
Control Delay
11.1
13.0
LCS
B
B
Approach Delay
13.0
Approach LOS
B
'Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Appendix C
Level of Service Definitions
Appendix C
Malley Ranch Traffic Impact Study Appendix c
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Defined
Level of Service (LOS) for unsignalized (two -way -stop -controlled) intersections is
determined by the control delay experienced by drivers on each minor approach. Minor
movements are those entering from or exiting onto the stop -controlled side street(s).
LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole, but rather for each minor movement
individually.
The delay value used in determining LOS is known as "control delay." control delay is
defined as the total delay experienced by a driver and includes initial deceleration
delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The delay a
vehicle experiences is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of
saturation on the uncontrolled (un-stopped) roadway (i.e. the number of acceptable
gaps in the passing traffic stream).
LOS values range from A to F. The delay range for each LOS value is as shown in the
following table.
Level of Service Criteria for
Two-Way.,Stop-Controlled intersections
LEVEL of
SERVICE
AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY
(SECONDSIVEHICLE)
A
0 -- 1 0
B
>10 —15
C
>15-25
D
>25 — 35
E
>35 -- 50
F
>50
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway
Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, 2000.