02. Resolution 5144 - Annexation - The Meadows, Inc.City of Kalispell
Planning Department
. - 2"d Street East, Suite 211.
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone.- 0751-1850
Fax: 0)751-1858
vble: kaillpa..or
REPORT ` Kalispell Mayor and City council
FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT .e Meadows, Inc. - Annexation and Initial Zoning of
. - PU , Two -Family Residential with a Planned Unit Development
e .t
overlay
MEETINGDATE: September 5, 200
BACKGROUND: This is a request for an initial zoning designation of R-PU , Two Family
Residential, with a Planned Unit development overlay upon annexation to the City of Kalispell.
The property contains approximately 14.65 acres and is located on the south side of Pour .mile
Drive, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Four Mile Drive and North Haver
Drive. The property address is 430 and 450 Four Mile Drive and can be described as Tract
located in Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P. I.M. , Flathead County, Montana..
It is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG- 10., Suburban Agricultural,
and is developed with two homes and several outbuildings. It is intended to be developed as a
residential planned unit development PU with 138 condominium m .its.
The Kalispell City Planning Board met on August 8, 2006 and held a public hearing to consider
the request. During the public hearing two members from the public spoke in favor of the
development. Three people spoke against the project with concerns regarding the additional
traffic, the density of the proposed development being out of character with the surrounding
area and the proposed height of the buildings impacting the views of existing homes located
south of the development. Several other people spoke neither for or against the development
but requested the planning board look at development patterns in the area rather than this
particular site when making a recommendation and to insure that the traffic and building
heights were adequately addressed.
The planning board discussed the development proposal and the testimony. After discussion of
the issues raised in the staff report and at the public hearing the planning board made several
additions to the recommended conditions of approval as follows:
• A. motion was made to add a. condition requiring the property owners to waive their right
to protest a future special improvement district for the upgrade of Four Mile Drive. This
motion was approved on a. 5 to 1 vote.
• The planning board straggled with the building height issue but ultimately made a
motion to amend condition no. 5 to provide for a maximum height of 21 feet a
measured from the southern. property boundary for units 8, 17, 18 and 19. The
consultant felt that the 21 foot height limit was workable for those units. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Meadows, Inc. - Annexation and Initial Zoning of .- 4
A-ugust 2, 2006
Page
A motion was made e to prepare a letter to be seat to the Montana Department t of
Transportation requesting that the intersection of Highway 93 and. Four Mile Drive be
studied for its current adequacy to handle the increase in traffic from this development
and other developments proposed along Four Mile Drive. The motion passed on a 5 to
vote.
After the amendments the original motion to recommend approval of the proposed - U
zoning overlay district was approved on a 5 to I vote.
Note: The planning board, based on a recommendation by the Kalispell E lie Works
Department, ent, did acid a condition #24 that stated the property owners waive their right to
protest the creation of an SID to upgrade Four Mile. The purpose of this condition was to
create a vehicle which. . would insure a complete unified upgrade to 4-Mile drive, not the
piecemeal program currently cc rrin.g. However, in so doing, they forgot to amend and delete
the last sentence of condition number 9, "In addition to the streets within the development,
Four Mile Drive, as it fronts the development, shall be improved to the City of Kalispell's
Standards for Design and. Construction and Montana public Works Standards. Therefore, the
planning department requests that the City Council amend condition no. 9 and remove the
reference to upgrade Four Mile Drive, as it fronts the development, to City design are
construction standards.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the resolution for annexation and. approve the first
reading of the ordinance for initial zoning of - 4 U wo-uld be in order.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Mirror positive impacts once fully developed.
ALERNAT ES: As suggested by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Sean Conrad
Senior Planner
Report compiled: August 23, 2006
Attachments:
ents:
c: 'Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
ryes H. Patrick
City Manager
Return to:
Theresa White
Kalispell City Clerk
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RESOLUTION No. 5144
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION of THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY, Y, ORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON `'EXHIBIT .A", LOCATE
IN SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, .M.M., FLATHEAD
COUNTY, MON AAA TO BE KNOWN AS MEADOWS ADDITION NO. 2; To ZONE
SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from The Meadows, Inc., the owner of
property located on the south side of Four Mile Drive, approximately 400 feet south
of the intersection of Four Mile Dfive and North Haven Drive, requesting that the
City of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Department has made a report onThe Meadows" Annexation
Request, KA-o -, dated. July 28, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the
territory be zoned City -4, Two Family Residential, on approximately 14.65 acres
upon annexation into the City of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property in accordance with Title 7,,
Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code Annotated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS
SECT ION I. That all the real property as sp ed above be annexed to the City of
Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and
shall he known as Meadows Addition No. 382.
SECTION It. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the City Clerk is directed
to make and certify under the seal of the City, a copy of the record o
these proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the City Council
and file said documents with the Flathead. County Clerk and
Recorder.
From and after the date of filing of said documents as prepared by the
City Clerk, or on the effective date hereof, whichever shall occur
later, said annexed territory is part of the City of Kalispell and its
citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws and ordinances
and regulations In force in the City of Kalispell and shall be entitled
to the same privileges and benefits as are other parts of the City,
SECTION 1. The territory annexed by this Resolution shall be zoned in accordance
with the Kalispell Zoning ordinance.
SECTION ON V. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the
City Connell.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCEL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR of THE
CITY OF KA ISPEL , THIS 5TH DAY OF S EM R, 2006.
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
. tract of land, situated, lying, and being; in Government Lot 2 of Section 1, Township 28 North,
Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the NW comer of said Govemment Lot 2 of Section l ; thence
South ° 3' West, and along the Westerly boundary line of said Lot 2, a distance of 3 0.00 feet to a
point on the Southerly boundary line of a county road and the True Point of Beginning of the tract of
land being described; thence
East and along the Southerly boundary line of said county road., a distance of 995.20 feet to a point;
thence
South o l ° l 3' West, a distance of 646.40 feet to a point; thence
North 89049 `30'" West, a distance of 991.40 feet to a. point on the 'westerly boundary line of said Lot
thence
North. 0°5 ' East, and along the Westerly boundary line of said Lot 2, a distance of 643-30 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
KA-o6-s
The Meadows Annexation
Cost of Services Analysis (Residential)
Once annexed to the City, full City services will be made available to the property ovmer.
Any necessary r infrastructure associated with this development wiU be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City of Ka .s eU s Design and Construction standards
and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply. Note that
water and serer are available ilable adong Four Mile Drive and would be extended to the
property at the time the applicant develops the condominium development called "The
Meadows".
s".
Number PMMII mar is_REoposed to be annexed
38c .ru�rum units
Estimated Increase in ulat n: (based on US Census Figure of 2.2 per household)
304
Cost of Services
Per capita costs
"'ire: $68.84 per person per year.
Additional costs to the fire department
' lee. $ 110 per resident t per year.
Additional costs to the pohee department
Administration: $39.48.
Additional cost to administration
Sohd Waste:
Additional a cost to solid waste
304 x $2,2
304 x $337440
304 x 3. 8= $ 12 P002
(name for five years) = $ 0
Lineal Feet Costs; (Lineal feet - AR roads within development wiU be privately
owned and meted, the severer and eater maims will be maintained by the City)
Roads: $1.14 per hneal foot
Additional cost M road maintenance
• Walter: $3.44 per lineal foot
Additional cost in water hne mea to an e
Sewer: $5.50 per lineal foot
Additional cost in sever maintenance
tenance
Storm severer maintenance r ter ante costs:
Average Square foot per um*t - 4,624 square feet
This is capped at ' ac.
0x1.14= $ 0
2,400 x 3.44 = $ 8256
2,600 x 5.5 = $ l ,300
I
• No. of units x square foot x 0.004018
oW An'ticiLvated Cost of Services.*
Antics tee Revenue Generated
Assessments based on square
138 x 4,624 x $0.004018 =$ 21564
Averg&e square foot - unit: 4,624 square feet
$9.1.
489
+ Storm sewer assessment $0.004018 per square foot
Revenue from storm serer assessments 138 x 4,624 x $0.004018 $ 2,564
Street -.a me a ee assessr .ent $0.0 101 per square foot
Revenue from street maintenance ante assessments 138 x 4,624 x $0.0101 $ 61,445
Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square Foot
Revenue from urban forestry assessments 138 x 4,624 x $0.00135 $ 861
Special Assessments: 'here are no special assessments.
Genet revenue:
Assessed value per unit: $ 250,000unit
Total assessed value: 138 x 250,000 -- $ 34 500,000
Total. taxable: 341,500 000 x 0.035 3 = $ 1,222,33
Totes additional general revenue based on 170 mW levy:
$1,222,335 x 0.1 70
Total Revenue Generated to the City
NET ,OVAL ANNUAL ZWENUE TO THE CITY:
- $ 2079797
$ 217v667
126 I78
NOTE: This information is based upon assumptions regarding building valuations and
does not take into consideration the build -out time or changes in met o s of assessment
and estimated costs associated with services. This information can only be used as a
general estimate of the anticipated ticipate cost of ser ces and revenue.
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
7 - 2nd Street east', Suite 211, .Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
.fax: (406) 7
August 22, 2005
James H. Patrick, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: The Meadows, Inc.Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-4/PUD, a 138 unit
condominium project.
Dear Jiro:
The Kalispell City Planning Board reset on August 8, 2006 and held a public hean'ng to
consider a request for annexation and an imffial zoning designation of R- U , Two
'a i ly Residential, on a rom' ately 1 . 5 acres. The requested PUD overlay district
would alloy 138 condominium units on the property which would be a mL'X of multi-
family buildings containing between 4 and 10 condominium units.
The property is located on the south side of Four Mile I r re, apprommately 400 feet
west of the intersection of .Four Mlle Drive and. North Haven Drive. The property
address is 430 and 450 Four Mile Drive and can be descr bed as Tract 4 located M
Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning e arty ent, presented staff report K.-o -
a.r d evaluated the proposal.. He noted the proposed development t plans for the
property and neighborhood eoncems and that staff is recommending approval of the
proposed R-4/PUD zoning.
un'ng the public hearing the consultants for the project provided an overview of the
project regarding site design, architectural style of the units, water, sewer, road and
storm water locations and anticipated traffic impacts associated with the development.
Two other members from the public spoke in favor of the development. Three people
spoke against the project with concerns regarding the additional traffic, the density of
the proposed development being out of character with the surrounding area and the
proposed height of the buildings impacting the views of existing homes located south
of the development. Several other people spoke neither for or against the development
but requested the planning board look at development patterns in the area rather than
this particular site when making a. recommendation and to insure that the traffic and
building heights were adequately addressed.
The Meadows, Inc, Annexation and Initial Zoning
August 23, 200
Page 2
The planning board discussed the development proposal and the testimony. After
discussion of the issues raased In the staff report and at the public hearing the
planning board made several additions to the recommended conditions of approval as
follows:
•A motion was made to add a. condition requiring the property owners to waive
their Hg t to protest a future special improvement district for the upgrade of
Four Mile Drive, This motion was approved on a. 5 to l vote.
• The planning board struggled with the building height issue but ultimately
made a motion to amend condition no. 5 to provide for a. maximum .eight of21
feet as measured from. the southem property boundary for ur is 8, 17, 18 and
. The consultant felt that the 21 foot height limit was workable for those
.nits. The motion passed unanimously.
•A motion was made to prepare a letter to be sent to the Montana Department of
Transportation requesting that the intersection of Highway 93 and dour Mile
r"ve be studied for its current adequacy to handle the increase in traffic from
this development and other developments proposed along Four Mile Drive. The
motion passed on a 5 to 1 vote.
After the amendments the orsgina.l motion to recommend approval of the proposed. R-
4/PUD zoning overlay district was approved on a. 5 to i vote. The planning board
member voting against the PUD zoning district cited concerns of traffic impacts,
current status of Four Mile Drive, private roads within the development t and design of
the units within the development. Specifically, that the omits have the garage doors in
the front with the front door located down a long corridor. The plannm' g board has
discouraged such designs in the past.
Please schedule this matter for the September 5, 2006 regular dispel. City Council
meeting. You may contact this board or seams. Conrad at the Kalispell. Planning
Department if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Smcerel y,
Kalispell city Planning Board
{
Timothy ortor
'resident
Attachments: Exhibit A - Petition to hex
Staff report #KA- -- KPUD-06-4 and m t na.
Draft minutes from the 8 planning board meeting
c w/ Att: Therese. ate, Kalispell City Clerk
w . ; The Meadows, Inc., 8-1st Street. East, KalispeR, MT 59901
Sitescape s it s,Attn: Bruce Lutz, P.O. Box 1417, Columbia Falls, MT
59912
The Meadows, Inc. Annexation and Initial Zoning
August 23, 200
Page 2
CUBIT A
THE MADWS - UD
CONDITIONS F APPROVAL
AS REC �N ED BY THE KALISPELL CITY PINING BOARD
AUGUST 8, 2006
The Kalispell City Planning Board held a. public hearing on this matter at the regular
meeting of the planning board of August 8, 200. The following conditions s are
recommended for the planned unit development:
General Conditions:
1. That the development t of the site shall be in substantial ompliance with the
following plans:
PUD plate. and phasm'g plan dated ed 7.3 -o
• Building elevations submitted with apphca.tion o -3-0
• Cross section view of buildings 3, 12 � 10 and 18 submitted with application
on -3-o
+ Detailed landscape schematic plan for buildings 17, 18 and 19 dated 7-31-
0
Detain retention area enclosure dated -31-0; and
materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions
associated with the PUD as approved by the city council.
2. Prior to issuance of a. building perr ..it each building within the development
.t
shall be freestandffig with regards to utilities and infrastructure being in place
or bonded for to serve the individual building. ondi for utilities and
infrastructure shall not exceed 3 % for the Mdivid a . building.
3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each bnild� all
infrastructure and landscaping immediately adjacent to the building shall be in
place to serve the Md.ividual unit. The infrastructure shall be certified by an
ex ineear licensed in the State of Montana and where appropriate accepted by
the City of Kalispell.
4. The clubhouse, trap system and putting g`ee shall be completed as part of
Phase l of the development. The clubhouse shall be approximately 4,000 square
feet and provide for an indoor assembly area and recreational activities as
indicated on the application materials.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings 8, 17, 18 and 19 a cross
section shall be provided to the planning department showing the maximum
building height to not exceed a height of 2-,S 21 feet as measured from the
souther.. property boundary immediately adjacent to the individual building
sites.
. The development is permitted one ' 1 ' e .try monument sign made of stone
and wood elements used in the design of the buildings. The sign shall be
located in the vicinity of the main entrance of the development. Prior t
I
nstalling the sign, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell
Architectural Review Committee.
7. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full
cutoff lens so that it does not intrude unnecessaffly onto adjoining ining r ewes.
. Approval of the planned unit development t shall be valid for a period of four
years from the date of approval.
Prior to issuance of any building permit for Phase L
. New infrastructure required to serve the development sbaH be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Ka .is ell's Standards for Design. and
Construction and Montana Public Works Standards; and shall be certified by
an engineer licensed in the Mate of Montana. a. All work shall be reviewed and
approved by the Kalispell Public irks Department prior to construction, This
infrastructure shall include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street
slgnage, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. In addition to the streets within the
development Pour Mile Dave, as it fronts the development, shall be improved t
the City of Kalispell}s Standards for Design. and Construction and Montana
Public Works Standards.
10. The developer shall subrmt to the Kalispell Public Works Department an
engineered drainage Plan that meets the requirements of the current City
standards for design and construction.
11. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works artme .t shall be submitted stating
that all new infrastructure along Pour Mlle Drive ive and waiter and sewer lures
located within the development have been accepted by the City of Kalispell.
12, Easements for gaiter and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell
and shown on the approved u.tillty plans. The easement widths shall meet the
requirements of the Kalispell Public Works Department.
13. The following requirements shad. be met per the Kalispell Fire Department:
a. Water mains designed to provide minimum fire flows shall be installed per
City specifications at approved locations. Mm*a�um fire flows shall. be In
accordance ce with International Fire Code 2 3 Appendix 1 .
b. Fire hydrants shall be provided per City specifications at locations approved
by this department, prior to combustible construction.
c. Fire Department artmer t access shall be provided in accordance with lrrtemati nal
Fire Code 2 3 Chapter 5.
14. The developer shall subrmt a. copy of the traffic impact study to the Montana
Department ent of Transportation for a systems impact review. Any necessary
The Meadows, Inc. Annexation and Initial Zoning
.st 2, oo
Paget
unprovements required from the Montana Department of Transportation to
mitigate impacts of the development on the highway system sail be completed.
5. A fma.l landscape design shall be submitted to the planning department and
parks and recreation department for review and approval.
16. The PUD plan s .aR be revised to show 5-foot wide sidewalks adjacent to the
street fronting buildings 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19. The PUD plate. shall also be
revised to provide for a. r inn' um 20-foot setback from the edge of the sidewalk
to the garage door for all of the units. Note: The implementation of these
conditions may result in the loss of units within the PUD.
17. That covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the development shall be
provided that include a. provision for the maintenance of the private roads
'thin the development, notification of snow removal of the sidewalks ad 0aeent
to the roads and sidewalk adjacent to Four Mile ve and include the
maintenance and upkeep of the boulevard along Four Mile Drive.
. The private roads within, the development snail be named and signed in
accordance with the policies of the Kalispell Public Works department and the
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual and be subject to review and approval
of the Kalispell Fire Department.
19. A letter from the US Postal Service shall be included stating the Service has
reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The
mail delivery site shall be installed or bonded for prior to construction of
buildings in Phase L In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall
also be included in the plans to be reviewed by the .abbe works Department.
20. That a development agreement be drafted by the Kalispell City attorney between
the City of Kalispell and the developer outlining and formalizing the terms,
conditions and provisions of approval. The final plan as approved, together
with the conditions and restrictions imposed, shall constitute the Planned Unit
Development D) onin.g for the site.
n oin conditions:
21. All utilities shall be installed underground.
22. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free
m� immediately after development.
23. Hazardous geed abatement shall e provided in accordance with. City of
Kalispell ordinance l o-- .
24. The...properly owners sha%1 waive their t to ..protest a future special
im rove ent district for the upgrade of Four Mile Drive.
25, A letter shall be preparedCity ` ` are.d sithe Cily Council
reg uesting. the Montar a D artment of 'ranran sportation to study,the intersection
f Hi era 3 and .r Mile Drive t l t rxr r� the intert � a� t
handle the increase in traffic from this development and other developments
r used along Four Mile Drive.,
THE MEADOWS, INC
REQUEST FOR M `UL ZONING OF R-4 UPON ANNEXATION
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT #KA-06-08
JULY 2 2006
report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kahs e . City Council regarding
the im'dal zoning of R-4 upon annexation to the City on property M northwest Kalispell
along Four Mile r*.e. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board
for August 8, 2006, b4nning at :00 PM in the his el City Council Chambers. The
planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Count for final
action.
BACKGROUND ENFOR3MoN
This report evaluates the appropriate assignment of a City onimclassification in
accordance with. Section 2 .o3.o 10 of the Ka .is ell Zorn'ng Ordinance. The property
owner has petitioned for annexation and H' tial zoning classification of - , Two Family
Residential.
1.
The property � cl .des two single-family residences located on 14.65 acres. The propel
owners are requesting city services in order to construct 19 m lit -family dwellings
requested through a Planned Unit Development (PULE) submitted concurrently with the
annexation and im'dal zom'ng request. The property is in the County oning jurisdiction
and is zoned s G- I o, Suburban gricult .raL This property will be sexed under the
provisions of sections 7-2-4601 Doug. 7-2-46 10, M.C„ ,, Annexation by Petition.
, Petitioner and Ow ers: The Meadows, Inc.
-1t street East
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 5-33
Technical AsL*Sitan: sitesca e Associates
P.O. Box 1417
Columbia Fags, MT 59912
(406) s2-32
B. Location and Legal Description of Prope The property proposed for
annexation is situated on the south side of Four Mile Dave, apprommately 400
feet merest of the Mtersection of Four Mile Drive and North Haven Dn*ve. The
property address is 430 and 5o Four Mile Drive and can be described as Tract
located in Section .. 1, Township 28 Now, Range 22 West, . M. M. , Flathead
Counter, Montana..
C. Eidwing zoning; The property is currently in the County zoning Jurisdiction an
is zoned SAG- 10 Suburban. Agricultural.` .e purpose of the SAG-10 district is
to provide and preserve arc It ral 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 �.�.imi ed, and to provide areas of
estate -type residential development.
D. Proposed Zoning: City R- , Two -Family Residential, s been proposed for the
property. The R-4 zoning district allows both si gl e- a.r y residences and
duplexes as permitted uses. The rr � ,um lot s1w for the district is 6,000
square feet and a um lot width of 50 feet with setbacks of 15 feet in the
front, 10 feet M the rear and five feet on the sides.
E. Ste: The area proposed for annexation. and zon.g contains a rom'matel y
1. . 5 acres.
F. fisting Land Use: Currently the property contains two single-family hones.
G. Adjacent d Uses and Zoning: The immediate area is mea ly c .aracteri ed.
y single-family homes to the south and a mix of single-family homes and
commercial businesses to the east. North of the project site is a large park o
acres) with a portion of the park compnsed of soccer, football, basebO and
softball fields with are associated parking and trail. system. To the merest of the
project site is a vacant piece of property.
Tort: Park; City - 1 zonj-ng
East: Single-family homes and commercial businesses-, City R-4 and City
R-5 PUDzoo g
South: Single-familyhomes; County R -2 zoning.
West: Vacant lard; City R-4 PUD zorfi.g
H. Genet Land Use Character: This site is it somewhat of a wed use area
generally characterized as residential with single-family neighborhoods to the
south and east, a professional business office center east of the site at the
intersec ion of Four Mile Drive and Highway 93, a-r area and open space to the
north and vacant land to the merest.
1. Availability of PubUc Services and Extension of Services: Public set -vices,
me siding grater and sewer are currently available to the east of this site.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set fort. by -2.205, M. C � f
Findings of fact for the zone charge request are discussed relative to the itemized
criteria described by -2- 203, M.C.A.
1. Does the Mgjested zone coMply withthe MasterPlan?,
The property is designated by the Kalispell Groff Policy 2020 as "Urban
Residential" which is defined as anti * ating tree to twelve dwellings per acre.
Because of the plans for the provision of public serer to the site, the proposed.
zon g designation is in compliance with the groom policy designation. The R-
zoning has a rr mum lot size re ui-reme t of 6,000 square feet, which would
provide are anticipated density compatible with the growth policy designation,
Typically, an R-4 zone would provide 5 single-family residential units or up to o
2 duplex or townhouse urfits per gross acre. The owners have su rmtted a
2
Planned Unit Development ) application in conjunction with the request for
annexation and initial zoning. The PUD requests pe=ssion to construct 13
cordonu*x m units within 19 separate multi -family buildings. The proposed
density in. the PUD would be 9.4 units per acre, within the range of allowable
clung units per acre In the Urban Residential Growth Policy designation.
2. Is the re nested zone desigged to lessen congestion in the streets
It can be anticipated that the proposed development of the property that wi be
associated with the zoning wiU increase traffic i acts in the area. due to the
relatively low density of the area currently. The proposed zonmg carves with it
the checks and balances, including the need for review, which will insure that
traffic flows and access are appropriately addressed. The potential densities
afforded by this zone will not overtax the e�dsting City road systems. As part of
any potential future development, the owners would need to take steps to help
mitigate any significant traffic impact.
3. Will the re nested zone secure safety., from fire anic and. other d.an ers
Adequate access and pubhc fatties would be made available to the site in the
case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property which would
oomrorrse the safety of the public. New construction will be required to be ..
compliance with the b ld ng safety codes of the City which relate to ire and
building safety. AH municipal services including grater and serer wiH be
extended to the property.
. Will the requested zone roc ote the health and eneral welfare
The requested zoning classification 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 M the community.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurn'ng on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning Orclinance to insure adequate light and air
is provided.
. Will the requested zone prevent the o rercrowdin of land?
. ... ....... . . . .
As previously noted, this area has been anticipated for residential development
and has, in fact, developed in that manner to the east. Since pubhc water and
sewer are available to the area, the urban land use designation is appropriate.
The anticipated density generally falls within the proposed. R-4 zorfing
designation. All public services and facilities wiH be available to serve this
property.
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people,?
An increase in the number er and concentration of people in the area will hkely
result after this land has been converted from agricultural densities to a more
intensive residential use. However, the intensity of the uses of the property would
e in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and Facilities
as well as compliance with esta hs cd design. standards. The design standards
and availability of facilities would provide the structure needed to insure that
there wili not be are. overcrowding of the land or undue concentration of people.
Mir mum lot standards and use standards as Drell as development standards will
avoid the undue concentration of people at the time the property is further
developed.
. WiU t e rc u.ested zone facilitate the adeguate provision of transportation, water
se srera. schools mks an offer re uirerr�er is
Public service, facilities and infrastructure would be made available to the
developer. The developer would reed to extend the needed City ser 'ces that are
not currently extended to the property at the developers" expense and in
accordance with the City's policies and standards. New improvements is to the
property such as roads, grater, serer, 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 to the site pfior to
development. Fire, pohee, ambulance and public access are adequate to
accommodate potential impacts associated with the development of this site.
There wiU be impacts to services that can be antic'IP ated as a result of this
proposal which can be met by the City. AU pubic services and facilities are
currently available or can be provided to the property. Development should be
encouraged in areas where these services are available.
9. Does the requested zone gLye consideration to the particular suitabilily of the
propeEly.,`or particular uses?
The proposed R-4 zoning district is consistent with the s rro nchng zoning and
land uses ire. the area. amid. � provide the basis for the future lard uses ors. this
ro ert r, in accordance wit the Kal�.s eU Groff Policy. phis gives
adequate consideration to the suitability of this property For the proposed use and
concurrent PUD proposal. osa.l. The proposed zoning is consistent with the anticipated
a.ted
lard uses in the area and gives due consideration of the s ita i .ty of this
property for the permitted uses in the district.
10. Does the re nested zone 'ire reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The general character of the area is transition between east ng urban, residential
located. south and east of the site and larger undeveloped tracts of lard to the
merest and northwest. The proposed on g allows this development to address
needs within the community for housing on public services and in reasonable
proximity to emsting commercial businesses, health care facilities and schools.
Availability of pubhc'water and surer to the area indicate that this type o
4
development will continue to occur along `our Mile Drive with smear types of
uses as is proposed with this property, i.e. urban residential rather than rural. It
appears that the proposed zoning gives reasonable consideration to the character
of the district.
Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
City standards will ensure that there is high quality development that will ensure
the value of buildings and homes are protected, maintained and conserved. Value
of the u .d�r� s 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
area.
12. Will the requested zone encourage e most ijppropriate use of the land
throughout the mur e al
Urban -scale residential development should be encouraged in areas were services
and facilities are available such as is being proposed on this property. The
.e
proposed zom'ng is consistent with the groom policy and surrounding zoning i
the area.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zom'ng Commission adopt
Staffs' Report #KA-06-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R- , Two Family Residential.
5
LZZIE eA.DOWS PUD
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMNT
STAFF REPORT # --
JULY 28, 2006
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the
request for a Planned Unit Development on a property located M northwest
Kalispell along Four Mile Drive. A public hearing has been scheduled before the
plarinm*g board for August 8, 2006, be ��g at 7P00 PM in the Kalipefl City Council
Chambers. The plannmg board ill forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City
Council for fmal action.
.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a request for a PUD to allow the development ent of
a residential condominium project in the City of Kalispell that would allow some
f.e�dbihty in street design standards and allowing multi family units within the requested
R-4 zoning distxict.
Petitioner and Ovmera. The Meadows, Inc.
First Street East
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 7-73
TechnicalAssistance: Sitesca.pe associates
P.O. Box 117
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 89-32
Nature the Request: This is a request for a Planned Unit Development U )
zoning overlay on property requesting City R-, Two Family Residential, o� . The
property is currently zoned SAG -1 , Suburban Agricultural. The property owners
have requested annexation into the City of Kalispell with the initial on � of R - .
The PUD will be know. as The Meadows and is proposing 138 condominium units
on apprwd ately 1 . 5 acres. 7he development consists of a mix of multi -family
buildings with four to tern writs per b it g. The proposed plat . departs from the
requested zoning of R-4 in that here will be multi -family dwellings on the proper.
The R-4 zoning district permits single-family and. duplex units and conditionally
allows for tree or more attached townhouse units. Multi -family dwellings are
typically found in the low, medium and high density residential apartment zoning
districts and in some of the business zorang districts.
The multi -family ily dwellings would maintain the minimum setback requirements
wither. the R-4 zoningdistrict with. the closest building at approximately 22 Feet to
the property boundary. In addition to the in1 -fly dwellings on the property the
proposed PUD cads for common landscaped open space, trails and, a clubhouse
facility. Access to the dwelling units and clubhouse will be provided ed. by a private
road with two accesses off of Four Mile Drive. The private access road will have a.
driving surface of 28 feet with gutters on both sides to handle storm gaiter runoff.
The storm grater is proposed to be collected and, contained in a detention basin
located in the northeast comer of the project adjacent to Four Mile Dave.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed for
annexation is situated on the south side of Four Mile Drive, approximately 400 feet
vest of the intersection of Four Mile Drive and North Haven Drive. The address is
30 a ,5o Four Mile Drive and can be described as Tract 4 located in Section 1,
Township 28 Now, Range 22 west, P. M. M . , Flathead. County,, Montana.
View of the
property from
Four Mile
Drive.
Houses M the
background
are located in
the Norte
Haven
Subdivision,
immediately
south of the
proposed
development
ent
D. fisting Land Use and Zoning: The property is currently tly in the County zoning
jurisdiction and is zoned SAG- 10, Suburban Agricultural. The purpose of the SAG-
1 o district is to provide and preserve agricultural functions and to provide a. buffer
between .r a and unlimited agricultural uses, encourage separation of such uses
in areas where potential conflict of uses will be minimized, and to provide areas of
estat -type residential development. on the 14.65 acre property are two homes
located on approximately two acres with the remaining land vacant at this time.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North.: 'ark- City - I zoning
East: Single-family homes and commercialbusinesses; City R-4 and City
R-15 PUDzoning
South: Single-family homes; County R- 2 zoning.
West: Vacant land; City R-4 PUD zoning
General Land Use Character: This site is in somewhat of a mixed use area
generally characterized as residential writh single-family .neighborhoods to the
south and east, several townhouse units and a professional business office center
east of the site at the intersection of Four Mile Drive and Highway 93, park area
and open space to the north and vacant land to the merest.
2
developed as part of this development. ent. The potential densities afforded by this zone
will not overtax the emsting City road systems as shown in the traffic impact study
submitted ith the PUD application.
3. Will the requested zone secure safiejy from fire am*e and ot.er da.r ers
Adequate .ate access and public facilities are available to the site i the ease of are
emergency. ency. There are no features related to the property which would compromise
the safety of the public provided ided all appropriate permitting is adhered to. New
construction will be required to be in compliance with the building safety codes of
the City which relate to fire and building safety. AR mu ci al services including
police and fire protection (includinghydrants), water and serer service is
available to the area and gill be extended as part of the development ent of this
property.
. Will the requested zone...12romote the heaJth and general welfare
The requested zonm' g classification Will promote the health and general welfare by
restricting land uses to those that would be compatible with the adjoining
properties and providing a. place for new housing in the community.
5. Will the reguested zone provide for adeguate.,jight and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurringoccurn'ng on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure .re adequate light and air
is provided. The planned unit development is not proposing a deviation from the
or .mg in a way that would comprise the development standards of the R-4 zoning
district which is x to .ded to address the appropriate size, location and intensity of
development.
. Will the re nested zone prevent the overcrowd m*g. of lard?
This area is designated as being within the Kalispell Potential Utility Service
Boundary in the Kalispell Groff Policy and is anticipated for residential
development. All public services and facilities will be available to serge this
development. The requested density for the PUD is approximately 9.4 dwellings
per acre. Given the surrounding lard uses and zoning districts the proposed PUD
density should not result in the overcrowding of lard or exceed the density
anticipated in this area.
. Will the re nested zone avoid undue concentration of people.
An increase �r� the number and concentration of people in the area will likely result
after this land has been converted from a .c It .ral densities to a more intensive
residential use. o rev-er, the i to .sity of the uses of the property would be in direct
relationship to the a ailabiEty of public services, utihties and faciEties as well as
compliance with established design standards. The design standards and availability
of facilities would provide the structure needed to insure that there wiH not be an
overcrowding of the land or undue concentration of people. Minimum lot standards
and use standards as well as development standards will avoid the undue
concentration of people at the time the property is developed.
. WiR the requested zone facilitate the a e a.te ro ision of trams Later
sewerMe, schools parks, and of .er lie re irements
A. public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the
property. Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are
available. The adequate provision of all urban and public services is available to
this site.
. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular s.ultabihly of the
propertyfor particular uses
The proposed PUD zonmggyres adequate consideration to the suitability of this
property for the proposed use by providing a mix of residential buildings with
complimentary open space. The property is fairly level with some slopes located on
the southwest comer however the type and intensity of development proposed in the
PUD can be accommodated on the proper. The proposed zoning is consistent with
the anticipated land uses M the area and gives due consideration of the suitability
of this property for the requested use in the PUD.
10. Does the requested zone 'ire reasonable consideration .or to the character of the
district;
The general character of the area is a transition between e3dsting residential
subdivisions located south and east of the site and larger undeveloped tracts of lard
to the merest and northwest. The proposed zonmg allows this development to address
needs within the community for housing on public services and in reasonable
proximity to existing commercial businesses, health. ease I'ac hies and schools.
Availability of public water and sewer to the area indicate that this type o
development will continue to occur along Four Milo Drive with similar types of uses as
is proposed with this property, i.e. urban residential rather than rural. It appears
that the proposed zoning gives reasonable consideration to the character of the
district.
1 l . Will the ro osed zone conserve the value of buildings.)
Values of the uildir s in the area will be conserved because the R-4 zoningand
PUD will promote compatible uses on this property and the proposed buildings
will be held to a higher architectural and design standard which will complement
the surrounding area and conserve the value of buildings.
12. will the re nested zone encourage the most a ro rlate use of the land
throe ho .t the municipality?
Urban scale residential development ent should be encouraged in areas where
services and facilities are available such as is being proposed on this parcel. "rhe
proposed zoning is consistent with the future lard use designations for the area
and surrounding zoning in the area..
5
EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UWI' DEVELOhWN' PROPOSAL*
Project Narrative: The Meadows is a residential planned unit development proposed on
property currently in the County. The property owners have filed a petition to sex
application and have requested the R- , Two anu'iy Residential zoning district, upon
annexation to the City. The property is located on the south side of Four Mile Drive
approximately 400 feet west of the ffitersection of Four Mile Drive and Mort. Haven
Drive.
The owners are proposing a total of 138 co do i�um units on approximately 1 , 6 5
acres that would be a mix of multi -family buildings containing between 4 and 10
condominium iniu units. The overall density of the development is approximately 9.4
dwellings per acre. The multi-fanffly buildings would all be two stores with the building
heights at 32.5 feet. The ground level footprint of the uildi s would range in size from
4,917 square feet pie to 11,640 square feet 10 piex . The individual condom i.ur
ur is could range in size from approximately 1,30o square feet to 1, oo square feet an al
each would be provided. with a minimum one car garage and one additional off-street
Parking space between the garage and the road.
The property owners have requested the R-4 zoningdistrict which has a. r .*nimum lot
size requirement of 6,000 square feet and permits either a. single-family ily crelhn or
duplex on the lot* Multi -family dwellings are not pe=tted in the R-4 zoning district.
However, the PUD provides the owners some flexibility in the lot layout and type of
residential use, which the owners have used. to propose multi -family dwellings as well as
providing open space throughout the project. The minimum setbacks for the R-4 zone
are 15 feet in the front and side corner property boundaries, 10 feet from the rear
boundary and 5 feet from the side property boundaries. The owners have provided a
rr m-imum setback of 22 feet from the rear and western property boundary, 28 feet from
the eastern property boundary, and a 40.5 foot setback from the front property
boundary.
The development of the 19 proposed multi -family buildings and clubhouse would occur
in four separate phases. The PUD application and proposed layout plan note that all
roadways and utilities for the buildings will be x sta led. during Phase 1. The PUD
application rotes that each building phase is scheduled to take one year so that the
project wiU be built out in four to five years depending on market conditions,. Pursuant
to the PUD phasing plan included with the application, phase 1 will consist of buildings
5, 10, 11 and 12. The clubhouse will also be constructed during this phase. Phase 2
will ciude buildings 1. 2 , 3, 6, and 13. Phase 3 will include buildings 7, s, 19, and 16.
Phase 4 will consist of buildings 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19.
The open space common area element of the PUD will include 6.2 acres or 2% of the
site. The entire open space within the PUD will be landscaped and irrigated and have a
three rail cedar split rain fence along the pen'meter of the property. The preliminary PUD
plan calls for a mixture of evergreen trees and small and large varieties of deciduous
trees. The trees will be placed along the access road and liming the perimeter of the
project. Around each of the residential buildings within the PUD a combination of
shrubs and perennials will be planted,, Other areas not immediately adjacent to the
residential buildings or clubhouse will be seeded and irrigated.
0
Criteria for the Creation of a Planned Unit Development ( UD) District
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell Zo=g ordinance. The intent of the pled ur t development t provisions are
to provide a zordng district classification which allows some flem*bility in the zoning
regulations and the mixing g of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and
enhancing the integn*ty of the neighborhood and the environmental tail 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 lication Based URon PUD Evaluation Cri a a; The zoning regulations
provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plain based on the
following er"iten'a:
1, The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
relations otherv6se applicable to the subject property, including, but not
limited to, density, bulk and use, and the Treasons why such departures are
or are not deemed to be in the public interest;
The planned unit development does not deviate from the zoning with regard to setbacks
or height restrictions but does deviate as far as the t, e of residential units proposed on
the property. Single family and duplex units are anticipated in the R-4 zoning district
whereas multi -family w .. are not permitted or conditionally errm'tte . within the
zoning district. The proposed multi -fly dwellings would allow a greater density on
the property that might of er r'se not be achievable if the owners were to propose a
subdivision creating a. number of duplex lots. With the increase m dwelling ur a'ts on the
property the ovmers are proposing over 0 of the property to be placed in a common
landscaped area.
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. Higher density housing is encouraged to be located in close proximity to
schools, businesses and services such as the sports complex, junior college, future high
school and corxa e cial centers which are all located. within 1 mile of the property.
Me owners have also requested a sign located on the merest side of tiemain entrance off
of Four Mile Drive. The sign shown on the PUD plan and accompanying application
requests a -' x o' e .try monument ent sign utilizing the project logo and made of stone and
good elements used in the design of the proposed buildings. The zoning ordinance
allows for subdivision identification signs however these are limited to one sigma. which
cannot exceed 20 square feet in area or two signs which cannot exceed 12 square feet
each per exclusive entrance to the subdivision or tract. The proposed monument sign
exceeds the allowable sig a.ge in the zoning ordinance however, given the density of the
development, providing one larger sign indicating g the name of the development t and
constructed out of materials complimenting g the buildings within. the PUD would appear
to be in the public's interest because it would maintain the aesthetic value the
development is trying to achieve and l=t the sig .age along Four Mile Drive to one sign
instead to two.
7
2* The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development
Rb
project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of
the common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and
fiction of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling
types proposed in the n;
Open space is defined in the Kahs ell Zoning rdi .a ce as "Any past of a lot
unobstructed from the ground upward. Any area used for parking or maneuvering of
automotive vehicles or storage of equipment or refuse shall not be deemed open space."
However, on a practical basis open space is much more than simply the undeveloped
land around a building that could mean the setback areas.
The preliminary PUD plan calls out 6.2 acres of open space. The entire open space
within the PUD will be landscaped and irrigated. The relimmary PUD plan calls for a
mixture of evergreen trees and small and large varieties of deciduous trees. The trees
wfl1 he placed along the access road and lining the perimeter of the project. Around
each of the residential buildings the PUD plan shows a. combination of shrubs and
perennials will be planted. other areas not immediately adjacent to the residential
buildings or clubhouse will he seeded and =`ga.ted .
The proposed PUD would alloy 138 condominium units on the property and the city
could expect the PUD to house are additional Soo residents. If the PUD were treated as a
subdivision the owners would have to provide parkland dedication or cash in Lieu
Payments equal to 4.1 acres. The proposed PLED will be providing 6.2 acres of open
space within which will he a trail system totaling 1,626 linear feet, a. putting green and
,000 square foot clubhouse. The open space proposed and the amenities which would
e provided on -site for the residences of The Meadows appear to be adequate.
The homeowners association would be responsible for the maintenance of the open
space and the amenities within the open. space. The owners have submitted a draft set
of the -covenants, conditions and restrictions for the proposed project which include the
maintenance of the common facilities including the clubhouse. if properly developed
and maintained it appears that the proposed open space areas will provide adequate
useable park and open space area for the residents within the planned unit
development.
3, The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate provision for
publicservices, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic and further
the amenities of light or air, recreation and Visual enjoyment;
The extension of grater and surer to the site will be required to serve the development.
Most of the public utilities will core from existing utilities in the immediate area.. Four
Mile Drive, located along the north end of the property, will he required to be upgraded
to current city standards it cl.udm' g widening of the roadway and the installation of curb,
gutters, a landscape boulevard and sidewalk. The developer will be required to develop
the utilities in accordance with. the Kalispell Standards for Design and. Construction.
Additionally, the new roadways to be constructed within the development include two
accesses off of Four Mile Drive. The access road, shoes as The Meadows Loop on the
PUD plan, WIR be a 28 foot wide roadway with curb and gutters on both sides.
Sidewalks are shown fronting most of the buildings within the PUD however the current
plan does not shover sidewalks immediately adjacent to buildings , ' , , 17, 1 and 19.
The owners have agreed to place -foot wide sidewalks fronting these units and to
provide street crossings to tie into the sidewalk system shown on the PUD plan.
Therefore, a revised PUD Plan will be required prior to issuance of the ast building
permit showing the additional sidewalks adjacent to buildings 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19.
view o
Four Mile
Drive. The
project site
is located on
the left side
of the road
in the
vicinity of
the trees.
The streets are intended to be private as well as the sidewalks and trail system. As a
recommended condition of approval the covenants will need to be clarified that the
internal streets senring the development are private and all repairs and maintenance is
up to the homeowners ers association. In addition, the covenants will reed to note that
during snow periods sidewalks adjacent to the street will reed to be cleared of snow in
accordance with the City of Kalispell ordinance code.
The zoning code requires that each unit have a minimum of two off-street parking
spaces. The PUD plan shows garages between 15 and 30 feet from . the edge of the curb
along the private roadway. During discussions with the owners at the City's site review
comm'ttee meeting, , the owners will need to revise the U . pia to show a. minimum of
20 feet from the edge of the sidewalk to the gaTage door in order to allow a vehicle to
park off the street and off of the 5-foot sidewalk. The detail landscape plan for buildings
1718 and 19 shows the increased setbacks for those buildings to accommodate the 20-
foot setback for the garages, however, a revised PUD plan will be required prior to
issuance of the first building permit if the PLID is approved.
The proposed multi -family its will be located throughout the property with the
majority ori.ty of 8 Plex units proposed in the development ent located aJong Four Mile Drive. The
buildings Nvill be a mam'murn height of 32.5 feet with the exterior of the iidm s
comprising a. combination of rock, horizontal and vertical siding and pitched roofs with
composite shinnies.
9
Residents along the soutl em boundary of the proposed development have provided
comments to the planning department regarding the effects the buildings would have on
their views. Specifically, residents along the southem property bounder are concerned
with those buildings closest to them, buildings 8, 17, 18 and 19. As stated above, the
r a�dmum buildm*g height would be 32.5 feet. Buildings 8, 17, 18 and 19 arelocated
dovn slope from existing homes the North Haven Subdivision adjacent to the
southern boundary of the proposed development. The existing homes along the
sout .em property boundary of the proposed development have a prominent view of Big
Mountain and the adjacent mountain ranges, Due to this prominent vier and the large
size of the multi -family buildings the planning department would agree that views
should be a consideration in revievn*ng the PUD.
It would be reasonable to expect development to eventually happen on this property and
moreover residential type development. The homes in Now Haven are all single-family
with some two story bores. Therefore, homeowners adjacent to the soutberr property
boundary of the development could assume that if a residential development were to be
developed that housing heights would be up to two stories in height, somewhere between
25 and 30 Feet, The consultant has provided a. cross section vier of building 18 and the
height of the building as it would appear at the southern property boundary. The cross
section indicates that the building would be a maximum height of 21 feet because some
excavation into the Inside would be required. Although the planning department would
agree with neighboring property owners that new development should not negatively
inpact their view, the department also recognizes that a maximum building height at the
property boundary between the development ent and the lots in Forth. Haven Subdivision
could be up to 25 feet in height and that this would be reasonable given the scale of the
buildings proposed and the proximity to the property lines. Therefore, the planning
department would recommend that prior to the issuance of a building permit for
buildings 8, 17, 18 and 19 that a. cross section be provided to the planning department
showing that the building will be under the maximum height of 25 feet as measured
from the southern property boundary.
To address some of the concerns of neighboring property owners, the consultant has
provided a detailed landscape schematic for buildings 17, 18 and 19. The plan ears for
evergreen and deciduous trees to be planted between the proposed buildings and the
property boundary. The plan also calls for a 3.3.5 foot segment wall located behind the
building to provide for a. level area to be landscaped with trees, shrubs and perennials
for the further screening of the buildings to rreighbon*ng properties to the south..
Storm gaiter management will. be required to be handled and retained on site.
retention pond is proposed in the northeast cornier of the property adjacent to Four Mile
Drive. The retention pond will be surrounded by a six foot high wood fence with
cultured stone columns with concrete caps located at points around the pond. The
attached landscape plan for the retention area indicates a. mixture of shrubs and bushes
between the fence and the sidewalk along Four Mile give to help give some visual relief
to the fence.
The common area and clubhouse, putting green and walking trails in the open space
area will provide the recreational amenity within, the development. These facilities will
be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
10
The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be estabUshed;
The general character of the area is a transition between e�sting residential subdivisions
located south and east of the site and larger undeveloped tracts of land to the merest and
northwest. The future development of these tracts of land to the west and northwest will
most lkely not be completely single-family residential but a combination of single -fly and
multi -family its and possibly some office begs.
Existing RA and R.-- I (Low Density Residential Apartment) zoning located to the west of this
site has had an approved. PUD in the past to allow e of a convalescent care facility
with duplex and triplex units surrounding the facihty. To the northwest of the site are o+
acres of land zoned. R-4 PUD. This FIFO allows for the s� gle-family, duplex and multi -family
its to be constructed on the property as well as professional offices.
The requested PUD would deviate from the typical residential subdivisions located to the
south and east of the project site. However, given the surrounding zoning districts and
the potential for a. mixture of housing types, the proposed multi -family buildings would
not adversely affect the character of this chan9mg neighborhood.
The traffic generated by the proposed 138 condomirdm units has concerned several
neighboHng property owners. The owners had WGM Group, Inc. out of Missoula prepare
a. traffic impact study as part of the application package. e. The traffic impact study
concluded that at full build out, traffic generated by the development would not decrease
the level of service along Four Idle Drive.
At the intersection of Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive the traffic impact study indicates
increased delays to be expected at the proposed developments full build out. The delays
noted in the traffic impact study are referenced as the Level of Service L S for each of
the turning movements at the intersection of Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive. The LOS
for the intersection is determined by the control delay experienced by drivers and is
calculated for each movernent, for each approach, and for the intersection as a whole.
The delay value used in determining LOS is known as control delay. Control delay is
defined as the total delay ex erie iced. by a driver and includes initial deceleration delay,
queue move -up time., stopped delay, and fh al acceleration delay. The delay a vehicle
expenences is a. function ction of the capacity of the approach, the volume of traffic, and the
sisal timing. The LOS values of a. signalized intersection are represented by the letters
A through F LOS A represents the best control delay scenario which has little or no
w a,iting time at the intersection. LOS F represents t1 e rorst case scenario where raitin
times at a particular intersection may take 80 seconds or longer for a vehicle to execute
the desired moved ent; making a left turn, right tum or continuing straight through the
intersection..
The traffic impact study notes that current PM peak hours, between : o and. : o pin,
at the intersection of Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive, for left tuns from Highway 93
onto Four Mile Drive, have a LOS of F. The future build out of the development, which
in the traffic impact study is suggested to be in 2009, will increase the delay for this
tuming movement from is current 261 seconds per vehicle to 641 seconds per vehicle
during the PM peak hours.
11
The concern of neigh orfxig residents is that certain turning movements, including left
turns onto Four Mile Drive, at the intersection of Highway ay 3 and Four Mile Drive are
a.lrea r impacted as noted above. The additional traffic projected to be generated by the
proposed development will only compound the problem. The traffic impact study was
forwarded to the Kalispell office of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT).
The MD T office commented mente that as a condition of approval the developer will need to
submit a copy of the traffic impact study to MDOT for a systems impact review to be
conducted out of Helena. MDo 's office in Helena will review the traffic impact study
and if necessary, require improvements to the intersection of Highway 93 and Four Mile
Dave lr order to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development. This
recommendation . has been added as a condition of approval for the PUD,
�T.-'lam .. ...LR. ,. ��iwd .•� w
x... . ........:.. -c-w
A.
:.
N.
View of the
intersection
of Hwy. 93
ared r
u
Mile Drive
looking
north. Left
turn
movements
is
onto Four
Mile Drive
from. Hwy.
3 are
already
iffi ul t
during PM
peak hours
of traffic.
Impacts to the level of service will occur at the intersection of Highway 93 and Four Mile
Drive as a result of the proposed development. Whether mitigation for the decrease in
level of service at the intersection is required will be up to MD . Potential future
development In the area may alleviate some of the congestion at Four Mile Drive and
Highway 93, This future development would include the 25 acres immediately vest of
the property zoned R-4 and. R.- I and the + acres located northwest of the property
zoned. RA p D. In reviewing development projects on these properties, the developers
'll need to provide Connections between Four Mlle Drive and existing or future
roadways In the area. This would help alleviate some of the traffic concerns in the area
but, to date, the planning department has not received any development proposals on
these sites.
51 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 Ending shall be made only after consultation
with the city a t mey;
12
The developers are anticipating that the project would. e- M four separate phases over
the course of four or five years. Part of the requirements of PUDis that the developer
would eater into are agreement with the City of KahspeH to adequately insure that the
overall integrity of the development, the installation . of required infrastructure,
architectural integHty are.d proposed arr erfities are accomplished as proposed.
Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
No other speck deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance can be identified based
upon the information ation submitted with the application other than those addressed in the
beginning of this report.
Public Comments:
The plying department has received six comment letters from neighboring property
ovmers as well as office visits from neighbors with the following concerns:
Density of the proposed development
• This is discussed under PUD evaluation criteria number er
2. Traffic impacts
• This is discussed under PUD evaluation criteria. number 4.
3. Building height are.d impacts to existing views
This is discussed under PLED evaluation criteria number 3.
. Potential for con omn' um units to be rented daily or weekly
The underlying zoning district for the PUD would he - , a. residential zoning
district within the City of Kalispell. Residential zom*ng districts do not allow
units to be rented daily or weekly. Rentals on a month to month basis are
acceptable. Daily or weekly rentals would be considered hotels or motels and
found in commercial zoning districts within the City.
. Garbage collection and maintenance of the common area
The project consultant has stated that garbage collection would be collected by
a private contract hauler and that residents would provide individual garbage
cars to be placed out on the curb the day of garbage pick up. The draft
covenants for the development require a homeowners association . to be created
for the maintenance of the common areas.
. Noise and outdoor lighting
Noise associated with the development would be typical of a residential
neighborhood. All outdoor lighting associated with the buildings would have
to comply with the lighting standards in the Kalispell Zoning r i a .ce.
These standards require outdoor lighting to be shielded in such a manner that
13
the light does not leave the perimeter of the site.
7. .act fees
The city is currently working on impact fees to be collected prior to the
issuance of a building permit. These fees are not required to date and could
e expected to be in place by early Zoo}
REc1OWNDAN
The staff recommends that the Kahspell City Planning Board and. Zoning Commission
adopt staff report K -0 -4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City
Cou.nci.l. the PUD for The Meadows rs e approved subject to the following conditions:
General. Conditions:
That the development of the site sha H be in substantial ntial compliance with the
fo o� plans:
PLED plan and phasing plan dated -3-0
Building elevations submitted with application on -3-0
Cross section view of buildings 3, 12, 10 and 18 submitted with application on
-3-o
• Detailed landscape schematic plan for buildings 17, 18 and 19 dated -31-0
• etail retention area enclosure dated -31-- ; and
r, atenals and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated
with the PUD as approved by the city council.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit each. building Witbin the development shall
e freestanding with regards to unities and infrastructure being in place or
bonded for to serve the individual building. Bonding for utilities and
infrastructure shall not exceed 3 % for the individual building.
3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building all
infrastructure and landscaping immediately adjacent to the building shall be in
place to serve the individual unit. The infrastructure shall be certified by an
engineer licensed the State of Montana and where appropriate accepted by the
City of Kalispell.
4. The clubhouse, trail system and putting green shall be completed as part of Phase
i of the development. The clubhouse shaU be approximately 4,000 square feet and
provide for an indoor assembly area and recreational activities as indicated on the
application materials.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings 8, 17, 18 and 19 a cross
section shall be provided to the planning department showing the building under
the maximum height of 25 feet as measured from the lout .em property
ounda.ry.
14
. The development er t is pe tted one ' x 1 ' entry monument sign made of store
and wood elements used M the design of the buildings. The sign shall be located
ire the vicim'ty of the main entrance of the development. Prior to installing the
sign, it s .aH be reviewed and approved by the Karns eU Architectural Review
Committee.
'. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full cutoff
leas so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties.
. Approval of the planned urn *t development shall e valid for a period of four years
from the date of approval.
Prior to issuance of are i permit for Phase 1:
. New infrastructure required to serge the development shad be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Kalis ell's Standards for Design and
Construction and Montana Public Works Standards; and shall be certified by an
engineer licensed in the State of Montana. AU work shah. be reviewed and
approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This
infrastructure shall include but not be kited to streets, street lighting, street
signage, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. In addition to the streets within the
development Four Mile Drive, as it fronts the development, ent, shall be improved to
the City of Kalis ell's Standards for Design and Construction and Montana Public
Works Standards.
10The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department t are
engineered dra.* a e plan that meets the requirements of the current City
standards for design and construction.
11.A letter from the Kalis eR Public Works Department shall be submitted stating
that all new infrastructure along Four Mile Drive and grater and sewer lines
located within the development ent have been accepted by the City of Kafis ell.
12. Easements for water and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell
and sl ovm on the approved utifity plans. The easement widths shall meet the
requirements is the KalispeU Pulle Works Department.
13, The f ollowm4 g requirements shall he met Per the Kalispell Fire Department:
a.. Water mains designed to provide minimum fire flows shall be installed per City
specifications at approved locations. Minimum fire flows shall be is
accordance with. Intematior al Fire Code 2003 Appendix 1 .
. Fire hydrants shall be provided Per City specifications cations at locations approved
y this department, nor to combustible construction.
. Fire Department ent access shall be provided in accordance with Intemational Fire
Code 20 3 Chapter S.
14, The developer shall submit a copy of the traffic 'impact study to the Montana
Department of Transportation for a. systems impact review. Any necessa-ry
im rover eats required from the Montana. Department of Transportation to
miti ante impacts of the development on the highway system shall be completed.
15
15. A fmal landscape design. shall be submitted to the planning department ent and
parks and recreation department for review and approval.
16. The PUD plan shall be revised to show 5-foot wide sidewalks adjaee the street
fronting buildings 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19. The PUD purr shall also be revised to
provide for a rr ' um 20-foot setback from the edge of the sidewalk to the
garage door for all of the units. Note: The implementation entation of these conditions
may result in the loss of omits within the PUD.
17. That covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the development shall be provided
that include a provision for the maintenance of the private roads within the
development, notification of snow removal of the sidewalks adjacent to the roads
and sidewalk adjacent t to Four Mile Drive and include the maintenance and
upkeep of the boulevard along Four Mile Drive.
18. The private roads vithm' the development shall be named and signed in
accordance with the pohcies of the r alis e . Public Works Department and the
Un forrrr Traffic Control Devices Manual and be subject to review and approval of
the Kalispell Fire Department.
19. A letter from the US Postal Service shy be Mcl ded stating the Service has
reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The
mail delivery site s .aR be installed or bonded for prior to construction o
buildings in chase r. In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall
also be included in the plans to be reviewed by the Public Works Department.
20, That a. development agreement be drafted by the Kalispell City Attomey betw'een
the City of Kalispell and the developer outliningouthning and formalizing the terms,
conditions and provisions of approval. The final plan as approved, together with
the conditions and restrictions imposed, shall constitute the Planned l rnit
Development UD) zoruffig for the site.
On going conditions.
21. All utilities shall be installed underground.
22. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix
immediately after development.
t.
23. Hazardous ardo .s weed abatement shall be provided in accordance with City of Kalispell
Ordinance 10- .
0
_P_ p `E E
ty of Kalisp
i'Yann6ng ISeparteno 0
'7 I �1St
.` q ��R �� NN6 DEPARTMENT
h a 6 - 8 0
'Fay ; 0 7 5
PETITION FOR ANNEXATIONAND ENI1 AL Z NIING
NAME OF APPLICANT: THE MEADS ]INC.
MAIL ADDRESS: 84st Street East
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: OWNERS
CITY S E/ZIP* Kalispell, 1%ff 59901 PHONE:756-7373
Other Parties of Interest to be Notified:
PARTIES OF INTEREST: Sites a e Associates, Attention; Bruce Lutz
MAIL ADDRESS: Box 1417
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Falls, lVff
PHONE:892-3492
INTEREST WPROPERTY: Land Planning and Landscape Architectural Consultant
PLEASE COMPLETE T11E OLLOWMG.:
Address the property; 430 and 450 Four Mile n'e
Legal Description; Tract #4 (Lot and Block of Subdivision,- Tract
SECTION 19 T2N, R2W (Section, Township, Range) (Attach metes and bounds as Exhibit A)
Land project ac 14.65 Acres
The present zoning of the above propel : Flathead County, SAG 1
The proposed zoning of the above property is: Kalispell R-4 with a PUDOverlay
State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary:
The owners of the propel' seek to change the use of the land from suburban to a planned unit
development with attached condominium style residences and common open space, walkways and
a clubhouse facility. The property will be accessed off of Four Mile Drive and be located just south of
the Kalispell Youth Athletic Complex and north of the North Haven Subdivision, east of the
Touchmark Propel and west of the Greenery Development.
The signing of this application signifies that the foregoing information is true and accurate based upon the
best information available and further grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the
property for routine inspection during the annexation process.
`� a A
L. . .... .... t,
(Applicant)
(Date)
I
Ret r to
Theresa White
Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
PETITION TO ANNEX
AND
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RURAL FM DISTRICT
The undersigned hereinafter referred to as Petitioner(s) respectfully petition the City Council o
the City of Kalispell for annexation of the real property described below into the City o
Kalispell.
The Petitioner(s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the property described herein and
further described in Exhibit A hereby mutually agree with the City of Kalispell that immediately
upon annexation of the land all City of Kalispell municipal services will be provided to the
propel described herein on substantially the sane basis and in the sane manner as such services
are provided or made available to other properties within the rest of the municipality.
Petitioner(s) hereby state that there is no need to prepare a Municipal Annexation Service Plan for
this annexation pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, M.C.A. since the parties are hi agreement as to the
provision, of municipal services to the property requested to be annexed.
The Petitioner(s) Further herein express an intent to have the property as herein described
withdrawn from the t - Rural Fire District under the provisions of Section
--2 1 1, Montana Code Annotated; and that incorporated into this petition to hex is the
Notice requirement pursuant to said Section; and that upon proper adoption of an ordinance or
resolution of annexation by the City Council of the City of Kalispell, the property shall he
detracted from said district.
In the event the property is not immediately annexed, the Petitioner(s) further agree(s) that this
covenant shall run to, with, and he binding upon the title of the said real proerty, and shall be
binding upon our heirs, assigns, successors in interest, purchasers, and any and all subsequent
holders or owners of the above described property.
This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive the utilities from the City of
Kalispell,
This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive l i e utilities from
.e City of Kalispell excluding solid waste services. MCA '- prohibits the city from
e d solid waste services to this property for a minimum o years from date of vexation.
7S A ca--� .. � -42!1 ~
P Moner/Q P-T
late
(/ A r --52
Pe too �rI Date
NOTE: You must attach an Exhibit A that provides a bona fide legal description of
the propel to be annexed.
17
STATE OF MONTAINA )
ss
County of Flathead County
n this day of before rye, the undersigned a Notary Public for
the State o Montana, personally appeared �- known
to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing mnstrme t and acknowledged
to me thathe/she executed the sane.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set .may hand and wed my Notary S the day and
year in this certificate first above written.-
r
Nosy Public, State of Montana
Residing at t,-� i .,
my Commission expires: . 1
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead County
On
this -- day o *.- before �e undersigned, a�tary 'e fo
the State of Montana, personally appeared known
to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray h2arid and axed my Notary S .fie day and
year in this certificate first above written. }. ` f
{
a
Nam- die, State of Montana
Residing at
My Commission expires.- -3
STATE OF MONTANA }
ss
County of Flathead
n this day of , , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for
The State of Montana, personally appeared are
7 the , and
respectively, of the
corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and the persons who executed said Instrument
on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
fN WITNESS WARE, I have hereunto set my hand and axed my Notary Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
Notary ' State ate of Montana
Residing at
My Commission expires
Exhibit A — Property Description
The Meadows
tract of- Ind} situated, lying, and being in Government Lot 2 of Section I, Township 28 N orth Range 22
West P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana, and more particulady described as fdk s:
Commen&nq at the NW owner of said Government Lot 2 of moo ; thence
South '0` West, and along the Westerly boundary line of said Lot 2, a distance of 30M feet to a point
on the Southerly boundary line of a county read and the True Feint of beginning of the f of land being
described; thence
East and along the Southedy boundary 11rie of said county road, a distance 010 . 0 feet to a aint� thenciF
South oI'a l ' West, a distance of 646.40 feet to a point; thence
North '21 " West, a distance of 991 too feet to a point on the Westerly boundary line of said Lot ;
thence
North °' as% and along the Wester boundary fine of said Lot 2, a distance of 543,30 feet to the
lnt of Beginning.
p ECEOVE. D
Ci*ty Of Ka"SP%1 ELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Department
17-2ndStreet East, Suite 2 11, Kalispell, Maya 59901
Fax: 6751-1858
"PLICATION FOR PLANNED UMT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PROJECT NAME THE MFADOWS
.. NAME OF APPLICANT: The Meadows, INC.
2. MAIL ADDRESS: -1st Street East
3, CITYSTATE/ Zspell, MT 59901 PHONE: 406- 5 -73 3
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER IF l FEREN l' THAN APPLICANT:
.
.
6.
7 •
8.
NAME:
MAIL ADDRESS:
CITYSTATE Z1 .-
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
MAIL ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE:
PHONE.
If there are others who should be notified .r the review process, please list those.
Sitescape ,associates, Attn: Bruce Lutz, 892-3492, Box 1417, Columbia Falls
Check One:
X Initial PUD proposal
Amendment to an existing PUD
A. Property .Address: 430 and 450 Four Mile D6ve
Total Area of Property: 14.65 Acres
C. Legal es tion Mcl .din ; section, township & range:
Tract 4 in Section 1, T28N R22W, Flathead County, Montana
D. The present zoning of the above proper is: Flathead County SAG 10
E. Please provide the following information in a narrative .ti format with supporting
drags or other format as d:
I
An overall description of the goals and objectives for the development o
the project.
The proposed Meadows development is situated on 1.5 acres of land
designated in the KalispeU Groff Policy for between 3 and 12 units per
acre. The property is located just south of the KaUspell Youth Athletic
Complex, north of North Haven Subdivision, east of the To ch ar�
(Waterford) and NotProperties and west of the Greenery
Development. The proposed Planned Unit Development cfor 138
condominium units with common ona dscaped open space, trails and a
clubhouse facffity. The ovmers hope to market the project to local "soon to
retirees', "empty -nesters', I ow;sl urs" and snowbirds.
b. n cases where the development wifl be executed M increments, a
schedule showing the tie within phase will be completed.
Please refer to the PUD plan sheet that illustrates the phasing plan for the
project. There will be four phases of building construction h aU of the
roads and infrastructure 1 uflt during the fint phase. Each unit buil g
phase is scheduled to take one year so that the project will be buflt out
within four to five years de endg on market conditions
C. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations including but not meted to density, setbacks and use, and
the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be M the
public interest;
The perimeter and interior nndm setbacks proposed are well within the
stipulations set forth in the Kalispell R-4 Zoning District, The minimum
setback between bua .cgs and the external property Hue is 22 feet. The
minimum distance between the sides of builffs is 20 feet. The area
where the pear► departs from typical subdivision development is that the
project proposes 32 foot back of curb to back of curb private fives within
the condominium development. Since there are no lots being created
within the parent tract,, there is no caU for a 0-foot right-of-way.
However, ty and linage easements will he created and recorded to
define infrastructure Orontes*
d. The nature and extent of the common open space m the project and the
provisions for maintenance and conservation of the common opera space;
and the adequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms
of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed a� the plan-,
.is project proposes to provide 6.77 acres of open space, a 4000 square
foot clubhouse and % miles of sidewalk and traUs as a common open space
component of the project. This component equals 2 of the gross area, o
the property. The gross density of the project is 9.4 units per acre.
e. The manner in which services wiR be provided such as water, sewer,
storm water management, schools, goads, traffic management,,
pedestrian access, recreational facilities and other applicable services
and utilities.
K
Please see the attached preliminary water, sewer and storm drainage plan
prepares#. by 48 North En eering. Also, Please see the attached Traffic
impact Study prepared by WGM Group. The site is adjacent to a regional
youth athletic complex KYAC which also has a pedestrian link that
connects with North Meridian Road. The site wiH be served by use.
Public Schools and the site is within walking distance of Flathead Valley
Community College. Thence is a traffic signal at the intersection of Four
Mile Drive and U.S. may 93.
f. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development
project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established
The area proposed for the Meadows project has been transitionin from
semi -rural suburban development to urban residential for the past several
years. Developments such as the Greenery and Nortbland are prime
examples of this trend. To the west, the former Waterford Development
will be resurrected and proposed at a future date# In addition, State Lands
has just sold a large tract ofland to the northwest of the site for urban
residential development, This is all supported, by the Kalispell Growth
Policy.
Homer the plan provides reasonable consideration to the character of the
neighborhood and the ecuhar suitability of the propert the
proposed use.
The proposed plan conforms to the stipulations set forth in the current
KallspeU Growth Policy and provides for efficient use of land for
residentW housing while eueourathe generous dedication common
and consistently maintained open space.
h. Where Mere are more intensive uses or m4com atible uses planned
within the project or on the project bo dax es, how with the impacts o
those uses be mitigated.
The project open space wiH be l.a dsea ed and ma, to ned by a
omeovmer s association set forth in the attached covenants. The dal
pis wiU include an automatedirrigation system. The level of dsea ulg
meet or exceed anything else in the s rroung neighborhood. see
reinary landscape plan iUnstrated on the PUD Plan.
L How the development plan will fuser the goals, policies and objectives
of the Kalispell Groff Policy.
The proposed plan is intended to lit exactly with the stipulations set Forth
in the KaUspell Groff Policy. "Single -Family, Duplex and lower Density
Multi -Family")
Include site plans, drawings and schematics with supporting narratives
ere needed that includes the following inonnatio :
(1). Total acreage and present zoning classifications;
See Plan
(2). Zo * g classification of all adiomoing properties',
3
See Attached
(3). Density in dwelling nits per gross acre;
See Plan
(4). Location, size height and number of stories for buildings
and uses proposed for buildings;
See ,BUD and Architectural Plans
(5). Layout and dimensions of streets, parldng areas,
pedestrian walkways and surfacing-,
See PUD and PreUminary Engineering Plans
s
(6). Vehicle, emergency .cy and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation and control;
See PUD and PreUminary Engineering Ply
(7), Location, size, height, color and materials of signs;
The development signage will be located on the rest side of
the main entry road. The sign ill be a awnument stele sign
utilizing .e proJect logo and made of stone and mad
elements used in the unit design. The sign Will conform t
the Kalispell a Sign Ordinance,
(8). Location and height of fencing and/or scree .m ;
A three rail cedar split -rail fence will be installed along the
ro eperimeter to provide a delineation of the
boundaries of the Meadows.
(9). Location and type of landscaping,
See PUD Plan
(10). Vocation and type of open space and common areas;
See PUD Plan
(11). Proposed maintenance of common areas and open. space;
See Covenants
(12). 'ro ert o .dar locations and setback lines
See PUD Plan
(13). Special design standards, ater' als and or co .ors
See Architectural Plans
(14). Proposed schedule of completions and phasing of the
development, if applicable;
le;
See PUD Plan
(15). Covenants, conditions and restrictions;
See Covenants
(16) Any other M `ors na.tio . that may be deemed relevant and
appropriate to allow for adequate review,
SEE E ATTACHED PLANS, COVENANTS, TRAFFIC C BW. CT
STUDY and other supplemental , ormam
If the PUD involves the division of land for the purpose of conveyance, a. relit=' ar
plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the subdiv1sion
regulations.
Please rote that the approved final plan., together with the conditions and resections
imposed, sha .l constitute the zoning for the district. No building permit shafl be
issued for any structure within the district unless such structure conforms s to the
provisions of the approved plan..
4
The sing of this application sigffies that the aforementioned information is tr-ue
and correct a grants approval for Kalispell l sty` to be present on the
property for roue monitoring and inspection during review process,
(Applicant Signature)
C)CO
(Date)
ki
Al?
, t �11 ,�� HK T. chir e)o I"1 01 f- r
650 5tome, 5t. ��aliopcll, MT 59901
(4-06) 756-0354 (4-06) 756-5592fax
Meadows building Footage
Building Otic, PF'Iex-Mar)
Ground Level Living Area
Garage Area
Covered Fatin f i'orch Area
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area
2"' Floor Living Area
2"d door Balcony Area
Total Building Area
Building Two (4FIcx-4-Car)
Ground Level Living Area
Garage Area
Covered Patio / f orch Area
Ground Level footprint (roofed) Area
2"a Floor Living Area
2' Floor Balcony Area
Total Building Area
Building Three (8FJcx-9Car)
Ground Level Living Area
Garage Area
Cowered Patio ! E'arch area
Ground Level footprint {roofed} Area
2"d Floor Living Area
2" door Balcony Area
Total Building Area
59600 5
2.,750 5
4-0 5 F
9,170 5F
6,270 sF
goo sF
15,940 S
3,047 5
11,370 5
5005F
4,97 5F
3,388 SF
300 SF
89,605 SF
5,600 S
2,990 S
4-0 5
91430 SF
6,270 SF
500 5F
16,220 SF
I
Building Four (bPlex-9Car)
Ground Level Living Area 5,600 SF
Garage Area 2,990 5F
Covered E'atio / porch Area 840 SF
Ground Level footprint (roofed) Area 9,430 5F
2na door Living Area 6,270 SF
2"d Floor E3aicony Area 504 SF
Total Building Area 16,220 5F
building Five (&PIcx-9Car)
Ground Level Livitlg Area 5,600 SF
Garage Area 2,990 SF
Covered E'atio f Porch Area 840 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 9,43 0 SF
2"' Floor Living Area E9270 SF
2"Q door Balcony Area 500 SF
Total Building Area 16,220 SF
buildine Six (4FIex-4Car)
Ground Level Living Area
3,047 SF
Garage Area
1,370 SF
Covered E'atio / f arch Area
540 SF
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area
4,917 SF
2"' Floor Living Area
3,388 5F
2"� door Balcony Area
300 SF
Total buildimo Area
8,605 SF
Building Seven (10F'Iex-10Cqr)
Ground Level Living Area 6,890 SF
Garage Area 3,740 SF
Covered I'aicio I E'orch Area 1,010 SF
Ground Level footprint (roofed) Area 11,640 5F
2' door Living Area 71670 SF
2"k Floor Balcony Area 600 5F
Total Building Area 19,910 5F
2
Buiiding Eight (10F'Iex-1OGar)
Ground Level Living Area 6,890 SF
Garage Area 3,740 SF
Covered Patio / Porch Area 1,010 SF
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 11,640 SF
2' Floor Living Area 7,670 5F
2' Floor Balcony Area 600 SF
Total buildimej Area 191,910 SF
Building Nine (8FIex-9Car)
Ground Level Living Area 5,600 SF
Garage Area 2,990 5F
Covered Patio t Porch Area 840 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 9450 5F
2' Floor Living Area 6,270 SF
2"d Floor Balcony Area 500 5F
Tota[ Building Area 16,220 5F
Building Ten (bMex-9Gar)
Ground Level Living Area 5,600 5F
Garage Area 2,990 5F
Covered patio I E'orch Area 840 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 9,430 5F
2"d Floor Living Area 6,270 5F
2' door Balcony Area 540 5F
Total building Area 16,220 SF
building Eleven (4Flex-4Car)
Ground Level Livine Area 3n,05
GarGar000 Area 1,570 5
Gor Patio 1 Porch Area 505
Ground Level Footprint (roofeci) Area 4,917 5
2 a Floor L1010 Ares 3,388 SF
2 Floor balcomy Area 300 5
Total bulkiino Area 8,605 5
3
buiWine Twelve (4111ex-4Car)
Ground Level Living Area 3,047 SF
Garage Area 1,370 5F
Covered Patio I #'orch Area 500 5F
Ground Level Footprint (rocfed) Area 4,917 5F
2' door Living Area 3,388 5F
2"d Floor Balcony Area 300 SF
Iota( Building Area 8,OO5 SF
i i g Thirteen(4fIIcx-4Car)
Ground Level Living Area 5,047 5
GarageArea 1,570 5
Covered Patio / Forch Area Soo S
Ground Level Footpritit (roofeJ) Area 4,917 5
2"" Floor Livitle Area5,585 5
2'4 Floor balcomy Area Soo 5
Total butUlmo Area 8,605 S
Building Fourteen (10f'Icx-1OCar)
Ground Level Living Area 6,890 SF
Garage Area 3,740 S
Covered Patio f Porch Area 1,010 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 19,640 SF
2"0 Floor Living Area 79070 5F
2"� Floor balcony Area 604 SF
Total Building Area 19,910 5F
Building fifteen (10F'Iex-1OCar)
Ground Level Living Area 6,890 SF
Garage Area 3,740 SF
Covered Patio / f orch Area 1,010 SF
Ground Level footprint (roofed) Area 11,640 5F
2' door Living Area 75670 5F
2"' Floor DQEcony Area 600 SF
Total Building Area 19,910 5F
4
Building Sixteen (10FIex-10Car)
Ground Level Living Area 61890 5F
Garage Area 31,740 SF
Covered E'atio f Porch Area 15,010 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofcci) Area 11,640 5F
2"" Floor Living Area 7,670 5F
2"' Floor Balcony Area 600 SF
Total buiWimo Area 19,910 SF
building Seventeen (4111cx-4Gar)
Ground Level Living Area 31047 uF
Garage Area 1070 5F
Covered Patio /Porch Area 500 SF
Ground Level Footprint (rocfed) Area 4,917 SF
2' door Living Area 3,388 SF
2"" Floor Balcony Area 300 5F
Total Building Area 8,605 SF
building Eighteen (bFIcx-bCar)
Ground Level Living Area 5,604 SF
Garage Area 2,730 SF
Covered Patio /Porch Area 840 5F
Ground Level Footprint (roofed) Area 9,170 5F
2"' Floor Living Area 69274 5F
2"° Floor Balcony Area 500 SF
Total Puildimg Area 15,940 5F
biio Nineteen Iex-8C)
Ground Level Living Area 5,600 5
Ga ra o e Area Z730 5
Covered Patio Porch Area b4O 5
Groumi Level Footprint (roo e Area 9,170 5
2 Floor Livine Area 6,270 S
2" Floor balcony Area Soo 5
Total butWing Area 15,940 5
5
I
The Meadows Subdivision
Traffic Impact Study-
0
Desert Mountain Ventures LLC.
First & Main Building
8 ls` Street East #204
Kalispell, MT 59901
June 2006
Prepared by:
M GROUP, INCR
ENGINE ER[NG•SURVEYING* PLANNING
3021 Painter • (406) 728-4611
P.O. Box 16027 * Missoula, 11lIT 59808
WGM Group Project # : 060419
The Meadows Traffic Impact Study
Table of Contents
Introduction.....,.....s.#,■ai#Ri..*l�s�acw�ll��lll��ll#,�,��;�##rW�M�*����#Wltaia#r�#��#�lrs���leiRlll,��#,.eiJll«wsll�ll�s��*.#1+�,���lw#ill;�y r
Existing ■gTrafficV lElilr 11 I�7R IIRR#�IFR#7R RiF #F##Ik R#J� *R#LR#1#R#E 11 �1*
AdjacentDevelopments ...................................... ik lYiYilii#i7kW#R7[W Wf Ei7lfiEJF!#IIIA#f�l#R#WI[74
2009 No -Build Traffic Volumes ........................... #F#*kIF*�1###ll Y�l ik lF iF*!I YY�t lEiik lk 11 i� Ititt�\ W VFW W 3S W fi# W#t��Yi W #1� W #
Site-GeneratedTraffic..W..W.Wf!WiYW......... ....Will\ill7R\4 f!NOW R t#R# lift i DROMM#!EWE K
Assignment of Site -Generated Trips............... iL E iF ik W W snows W f W# R W W\ IR W 141/ # W W iF w i l y; lF R lr i4lk
2009BuildTraffic Volumes # R7F# Ilf if #4 ikR MI iR 11# i� \ 471# M M �f E11 **�L �F!!I W. # W.i# W fY W'W lfa E i E 11 iRi RR �I ik IIF 7l ll +. *1l ll R lbw F�M RY7R ll*# M#M*IF M �F i4 l4 �1 lk MI �! *711
Capacity Analysis lysiY \#ll!#am mummoss am usan* a&*&.. kW#W WAam mem 2
Report Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 18
S Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive/GrandviewDrive...... .....................................21
Four Mile Drive and North Haven Drive .................LL,f1'F,,♦}.a.................................i*2 w2
Site Access 2 and Four Mile Drive Y.Y#ii Y#............„.....,Y•.},}#.♦s.!#.r........ ...........iM....... 23
Site ess { and d Four Mile Drive .............................. w ...........................
�F L � Y i Y I� R Y W JL 1L i • Y �wwM
List of Tables
Table 1 The Meadows Subdivision Estimated Site Generated Trips. , .. , L ... } w ; } . L ..... {
Table 2 US 93 North and Four Mile Drive Level of Service Summary........... ... t ...... 13
Table 3 Borth Haven Drive and Four Mile Drive Level of Service Summary.............1
" abI e 4 Fo ur Ails Drive and Site Access 2 bevel of Service Sumrn 16
Table 5 Four Mille Drive and Site Access 1 Level Service Summary ............... L .. }. 17
List of Figures
Figure I Site Location— ................ m ....... ....... .........3
Figure 2 Site Plan 'm'w'
l n*....__tw.R.a.__..YY.a..._............._.._.. _�.Y.
4
� ir# i♦w# 44rti wi�rraratrrt+`ataarr a f 4w�_arrrr is arttararari r
Figure 3 2006 Existing Traffic Volumes .....
Figure 4 201 N -Build Traffic Vo Iumes......... R,..t�t_�.wR...� ....a ...... � ......... ,.sw*Rrt y,��*��.�..��.�aY�..aa.aaaa..
Figure 5 Site Arrival/Departure Pattern ------*-----aa-a.a_aaaaaaYa.-.aaaa ---------. ��...�__------__-_.+-a----..-t---a-19
"
Figure 6 Site Generated Peak Hour rip Assignment_..ia......a..i.....i------------- 10
Figure 7 2010 build Traffic Volumes .................-- ....... .+...aaaa.a................a...........#..
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page
Introduction
Desert Mountain Venture proposes construction of e residential development, The
Meadows Subdivision, on the south side of Four Mlle Drive on the north end o
Kalispell, Montana (Figure . The proposed development will consist o
approximately 138 tow horne .
Vehicle access to the planned development is proposed from Four Mlle Drive (Figure
2). Four Mile Drive is a local collector street that connects with US Highway 93 N at
signalized intersection.
The property on which the proposed subdivision will be built is approximately 1.6
acres in size. Where are currently two residences on the property, the remainder o
which is undeveloped. Land uses in the vicinity of the site include a mix of residential,
recreation, and office.
This traffic study was prepared using standard traffic engineering techniques to
determine the impacts of the proposed development on traffic within the study area,.
traffic capacity and level -of -service analysis is presented both with and without the
proposed development to identify the incremental impact on traffic operations.
Construction of the development is expected to begin in 2006, and will be complete in
2009.
The following intersections were identified for analysis in this study through
coordination with the City of Kalispell Planning office:
• S 93 Forth and Four Mlle Drive/Grandview Drive
• North Haven Drive and Four Mlle Drive
• Four Mlle Drive and Site Access #2
• Four Mile Drive and Site Access
The Meadows Subdivision r ffi Impact Sturdy Page 3
Figure 1 -- Project Vicinity Map
Y :-4i
oca�
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study
Page
Figure 2 — Site Plan
Four Mile Drive
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page
Existinalraffic Volume
To identify existing traffic volumes within the study area, AM and PMpeak-period,
manual traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections on May 3 and 4, 2006,
and May 10, and 11, 2006. The AM peak -period counts were conducted between
and 9:00 AM and the PM peak -period counts were conducted between 4:00 and
6:00 PM. The court data (ire Appendix was then analyzed to determinethepeak-
hour traffic volumes for each intersection. Kalispell Community College and the area
high schools were in session during this period which added to the AM and PMpeak-
period volumes;
Figure 3 shows the existing peak -hour traffic volumes derived from the traffic counts
and used for this report.
Figure 3 — 2006 Existing Peak -Hour
CN CO
5/97 /5/194
Four Mile Dr.
f-6/1
/
10
41
1 2/4
0/2
29/67r
C
Z
Legend
AiuI1PM
North
+.18/97
11
56/92
/
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page
Adi,acent Developments
Other planned developments in the vicinity of this project were discussed with the City
of Kalispell Planning Department for 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*
The Meadows subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page
2009 No -Build Traffic Volumes,
The 2006 existing traffic volumes on US Highway 93 N. and on Grandview Drive were
projected to the study year 2009 using a four point four -percent -per -year . %), peak -
hour -traffic growth rate, This growth rate was based on data from the Montana
Department ent of Transportation (MDT) publication, Traffic By Sections, for US 93 North
between Jct U6 (Grandview Drive) and Jct S-548. These projected traffic volumes
result in the 29 No -Build traffic volumes shown in Figure 4. These volumes
represent the baseline condition that is projected to exist in 2009 without development
of The Meadows Subdivision.
Figure 4 — 2009 NomBuild Traffic Volumes
2%
Z%
Lem
Entering
Exiting
North
The Meadows Subdivision T- ffiImpact Study Page
Site -Generated Traffic
The proposed The Meadows Subdivision will consist of approximately 138
townho es. Information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE
publication Trip Generation 7th Edition) was used to estimate the number of trips that
ill be generated by the proposed development. Table I shows the results of the trip_
generation calculations.
Table s The Meadows subdivision Estimated site -.Generated Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
L I Land Average
Use Code Daily Enter Exit Enter Exit
Traffic
Town homes 138 230 844 11 56 52 2
Assignment of Site -Generated Tri.ps
Existing traffic patterns throughout the study area were studied to identify commuter
travel patterns. The existing volumes at the study intersections are greatly influenced
y the surrounding recreational land uses (city soccer, softball, and football fields on
Four Mile Drive) during the PM peak lour; therefore, emphasis was placed on existing
M peak hour volumes. For this traffic analysis It Is estimated that approximately %
of site -generated peak -hour trips will be destined to US 93 soh of the site,
approximately 29% will be destined toward Whiteflsh and ether locations north on US
93, and approximately 2 will travel to/from Grandview Drive east of the site. The trip
distribution paftern for The Meadows subdivision site -generated trips established for
this study is illustrated in Figure 5.
The site -generated trips from Table I were distributed to the roadway network in
accordance with the trip distribution patterns. This resulted in the AM and PM peak -
hour, site -generated trips shown in Figure.
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study
Figure 5 — Site Arrival/Departure Pattern
Legend
AMiaM
n
North
Page
The Mrs Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page 10
Figure 6 -- Site Generated Peak -,Hour Trip Assignment
-*--
-10/1 0
f-5/23
Four Mile Dr.f-6/29
0/
41
0/--+
UD
CN
W
ED
0
Legend
ANfJPM
Narth
Ca
1 146
"" 11
CD
.1 14
2/
8/8
0
z
CO
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study .
2009 Build Traffic Volumes,
Page
The site -generated traffic was combined with the 2009 No -Build traffic volumes
resulting in the projected 2009 Build traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. These are the
traffic volumes projected to exist in 2009 when The Meadows Subdivision is complete
and fully occupied.
Figure 7 -- 2009 Build Traffic Volumes
CD
CO
/9 `
� 101120
161246
f-5/23
Four Mile Dr. 61
f�11
,
3 0142 --Ip-
*
28/57�+
/
a/0I
0r
0,
C14
z
CD
L. e�„e, ad
AM1PM
11
4-0/15
6 i1 o
Cn T-
eoT-
The Meadows s Subdivision Traffic Impact Studer Page 12
Capacity Analys39
is
To identify the potential traffic impacts of the subject development proposal, an
intersection capacity analysis was performed for each of the study intersections using
the No -Build and 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 Beard. The
analyses worksheets are contained in Appendix Br
The analysis procedures result in traffic Level of Service L S rankings ror A to F
with A representing essentially free -flow conditions and F representing over -capacity
conditions. See Appendix C for a description of the various L S categories.
The Mars Subdivision Traffic Impact Study Page 13
Intersection of US 93 North and Four Mile Drive
Existing Conditions
S 93 North is a north/south major arterial roadway consisting of two lanes in
each direction. At this intersection, US 93 provides one left -turn lane, one
through lane, and one through/right-turn lane s u bb and and one left -turn
lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn lanes northbound. Four Mile Drive
forms the eastbound approach to this intersection providing oneleft/through
lane and one right -turn lane. Grandview Drive forms the westbound approach
to this intersection and provides one lane for the left/thmugh/rIght movements.
This is a signalized intersection with a two-phase timing plan.
Capacity Anal sis
capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2009 No -Build
and Build traffic volumes developed in this report, and the above -described
intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table
2*
Table : US 93 North and Four Mile Drive Level of Service Summary
AM k Hour
PM Peak Hour
0
09
9
09
Existing
No -Build
Build
Existing
No -Build
Build
Delay
L
Delay
L
Delay
LC
Delay
L
Delay
Lo
Delay
Lo
Eastbund
.1
C
w
2.
C
2Y
Left
Through/Right
Westbound
.
C
.
29.1
.
53.5
7y�'y}�
ir�
57.8
E
}/++ ii�yk rE�y; f/} Yi
LW�i FroV i }i F
Northbound
3.9
A
4k2
A
4.8
A
261.
4.
F
641.3
Left
Northbound
-7
Through
Northbound
4.0
A
4.1
A
4.1
/l
5.0
li
5.1
A
5.1
Right
Southbound5.8
/ i
7.2
A
7.2
A
35.0-
C
1753
F
Left
. . .................
Southbound
6 3
A
A
A
1 .5
10.6
B
Through/Right
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Studer
Page 14
The AM peak hour at this location is projected to operate a good LOS even with the
traffic added by the proposed development. Analysis of the PM peak hour indicates
an S F for the left -turn movements on US 93. Based on the existing signal phasing
and high volume of tragic turning onto Four Idle Drive for recreational purposes, this is
not altogether unexpected. Implementation of an actuated protected left -turn phase
may be warranted if delay becomes unacceptable. The City would coordinate with the
Montana Department of Transportation to request this signal operations modification.
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study 'age 15
Intersection of North Haven Drive and Four Mike Drive
Exist.'i.ng conditions
Four Mile Drive is an east/westcollector roadway consisting of a thirteen -foot
lane in each direction. At this intersection, Four Mile Drive provides one
left/through lane westbound, and one through/right-turn lane eastbound. North
Haven Drive forms the northbound approach to this intersection providing one
rare shared by both left- and right -turning vehicles. The North Haven Drive
approach is stop -sign controlled.
Capacily-Analysis
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2009 No -Build
and 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: North Haven Drive and Four Mile Drive Level of service summary
Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour
No -Build Build No -Build Build
Dena L S Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Los
Westbound 7.2 A 73 A 7.4 A 7.4 A
LeftfThrough
Left/Right
Delay is measured in seconds per aril.
This intersection is projected to operate at a good LOS in both the -Build and Build
conditions. No improvements are required at this location.
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact study
Intersection of Four Mile Drive and Site Access 2
ExistinConditions
Page 16
This intersection does not currently exist. Four Mile Drive is an east1west
collector roadway that consists of one lame in each direction* Site access 2 i
proposed as a full movement intersection with stop -sign control.
C a R na y
iM�liii17N4NIi444MIi17Y�1
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 2009 Build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4.
Table : Four Mile Drive and Site Access 2 Legal of Service Summary
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
Build
Build
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Westbound
eft(Tro
.3
Northbound
Lf is
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle
This intersection is projected to operateat an acceptable LOS as a full movement
driveway.
The Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Study
intersection of Four Mile Drive and Site Access I
Page 1
Existin Con ditions
This intersection does net currently exist} Four Mile Drive is an east/west
collector roadway that consists of one lane in each direction. Site access 1 I
proposed as a full movement intersection with stop -sign control,
C ace Analysis
A capacity analysis was conducted for this intersection using the 29 Build
traffic volumes developed in this report and the above -described intersection
configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5.
Table R Four Mile Drive and Site Access I Level of Service Summary
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Haar
0
Build
Build
Intersection
Approach
Delays
z
Westbound
A
73
A
Left(Through
.2
Northbound 1
8.4
A
A
e8
.5
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle
This intersection is projected to operate at a good L S as a full movement emen driveway.
The Mrs Subdivision Traffic Impact Study
Re.pp rt S u m m a Conclusions, and Recommendations
Page 18
The discussion and analyses contained in this report can be summarized as follows. -
Desert Mountain Venture proposes to construct a residential development, The
Meadows Subdivision, consisting of approximately 138 townhomes. Access to
the proposed development will be from Four Mile Drive.
Each of the intersections analyzed in this report are projected to operate at
generally good LOS under the forecasted 2009 No -Build traffic volumes. The
site -generated traffic added to these intersections by the proposed subdivision
will result in only minor increases in driver delay. No improvements to the un-
signalized study intersections are necessary.
t the point that delay for left -turns from US 93 becomes unacceptable, the
implementation of an actuated, protected, left -turn phase may become
necessary.
• Each of the site driveway intersections are projected to operate at very good
levels of service under stop -sign control.
W:\Projects\060419\Traffic\4-Mfle TIS final
D 90@!0VLffn
.u�c o � eft7�as ��
KALISLL PINING DEPAUMENT
July 3 1, 2006
Kai ell Plying Department
Street East* Suite 2 11
Kalispell, M 901
R-E: The Meadows Inc.. for annexation, initialed zoning and planned unit development
(PUD) for the Meadows on a 14.65 acre property. The property address is 4 and
o Four Mile Drive, Kalispell., Montana.
Dear Kalispell Planning Department and Whom it may conce :
The owner of the Real Property has submitted a Planned Unit Development and.
Condominium Residential Community on Tract 4 locate. in Section I Township 2
North, Range 22 vest, Flathead County, Kalispell, Montana.
There are a number of concerns I have regarding the pending approval of this Real
Property Development by the current ando vner.
ImpactFees:
s the Developer or Owner paying any mpaet fees to the city or to School District
on individuallots? By paying impact fees, the fees would have a positive
affect for the City and School District 5.
Road. Safety:
Each Couniiperson should go to the Kids Sport Real Property any weekend
during September and October as well Apn'l through July-, there are usually more
than 1,000 children plus parents and a large number of vehicles each Saturday.
There are practices and games for football and soccer 3 to 4 nights a week during
the fail. During the spn'ng and summer moths there are practices and games 6 to
days a week for softball, baseball and soccer,
Four Mile Drive is probably up to city Code for vehicle traffic; however, there
are not any bike or walking paths on the North or South sides of the road..
Tuming on and off Highway 9 to the Kids Sport complex and the three current
subdivisions is almost impossible to do anytime of the year. There isn't a turn
arrow light on Highway North to turn West onto Four Mile Drive. i would
suggest to each councilerso. to turn onto Four Mile Drive during the hours o
: 0 AM to 8 : i ce,. I: o AM to I: M, and o M to : IMF Monday
through Saturda y. You will e taa inz your life i . o r own hands. As a
suggestion the City' Police Force could earn their salaries by issuing speeding
tickets and reckless driving tickets to motorists during the above hours. Many
residents o the three s d.i isions ors `o .r Mile Drive t m onto Grandview Drive
and then tum around at the college, to use the light to get onto Four Mile Drive.
Residents do this because off'the high volume of traffic during the above
mentioned .fours.
Flathead County Planning Office stated at Commissioners hearing regarding the
Ashley Lake South Subdivision pending Plat hearing that each lot owner will
have round trips to and from their residence this adds up to 1.3 80 trips per day
on Four Mile rive; if there are two drivers per residence. This definitely .huts
more traffic stress on Four Mile Drive, Highway North and South and the left
turn lane on Highway going West onto Four Mile Drive.
Character of the Cent Subdivisions:
North Ridge, Summit Ridge, and North. Haven Heights are three subdivisions
located near the pending subdivision. These subdivisions are single family
residences on lots of 1/4 to V2acre and some lots are larger. The Meadows is
requesting approval to build I condominiums on 6.7 acres.
The total lousing population of the 27 homes in the North Hagen Heights
subdivision is 76 individuals or 2.81 persons per residence. If the Meadows has
condominiums with 2 persons per residence there is a population of 276
individuals ideals-, which is . times greater than the North Haven Heights population.
North Haven has 2 homes per acre or approximately 5.6 people per acre, using are
average of 2.8people per home. The Meadows subdivision will have
approximately 20 .6 homes per acre or 4 I. people per acre using people per emit
or 82,E people per acre using 4 people per emit. At 2 people per unit that 'is 7.35
tires as r anv peo-ple per acre than North Haven. If there are 4 people per emit
that is 14.7 times as many people per acre than North Haver.
The North. Haven subdivision has many vier lots, with the proposed height of the
1 condominiums it will lessen the views for the homes in North Hagen.. Mary
homeowners paid extra when Purchasing their homes for the views and may
Possibly sell their homes at a lessor sale price, because their views have been
obstructed.
If the Meadows subdivision is approved as is, it will create the following issues'.
density problem, many safety issues, reductions of views for the residence owners
of North Haven Heights, and the subdivision is not in character wi.th the
sounding subdivisions in its land usage.
Kalispell Plying Department if you have any questions please call e a m
work 0--21 or at my home 4-2-4.
'hank you for your time to read my thoughts.
Sincerely!,
a�
John R. King,
Homeowner at 134 North. Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
:D
City of Kalispell Plannmg Department :}.
From: Dan and Cary Heskett
129 N. Haven Dr. KAUSPELL PINING DEPARTMENT
Kalispell, MT 501
Re: Request for 138 condommiUm units on Four Mile eve
July 3 , Zoo
urge the City of Kalispell Planning Department to reject the request from The Meadows
INC. to develop 138 condominiums on Four Mile Drive.
refer you to the "Kalispell Groff Policy Zo o"" section entitled "Suburban o s t ,"
which reads:
.a, Densitites should be appropriate to the ffinitatio.s of the particular site and
should not exceed two to four dwellings per gross acre*
. The suburban presidential designation is intended to reduce density and
development'IMP
acts in sensitive tive areas and existing rural eighor .00ds.
e. Single-family houses are the primary host type.
The Meadows proposal contradicts each of these policies adopted by the Kalispell City
Council. I will elaborate some specific concerns that we have:
• A high density condominium development does not fit the character of the
Norfrid e and North Haven neighborhoods. (Housing policy #2 dictates that
"developments be consistent with the character of the area...)" This development,
which would have approximately 10 units per acre, would directly border a
neighborhood with a density of less than two houses per acre. And two story
condominiums would be built approximately 20 feet from our backyards; This is
not smart groom which values the character and integrity of existing
neighborhoods,
• I urge you to consider the area that surrounds the proposed development:
-across Four Mile Dfive is Kid's Sports, which has shown a tremendous increase
in usage and significant traffic problems on Four Mile Drive and HWY 93.
Ding sports seasons, it now takes -5 light charges to make a left hand turn
onto Four Mile Drive!
-directly west of Kid " s Sports is a proposed 600 unit subdivision. How many trips
per day on Four Mile eve does each house represent?
--a little der west on Four Mile .give is property to be developed into a long
term ease facility.
-on the south-west comer of Four Mile Drive and HVN 93 is a new office park.
All of these indicate that such a high density development would be very
problematic to traffic and safety. Four Mile Drive could not handle the amount o
traffic that currently exists and will be created by this groom.
I favor smart growth and I favor fill in groom rather than sprawl. But this is not smart
groom because it does not respect the character of the neighborhood and the density i
not appropriate to the sounding area.
EOE�VE
City of Kalispell July 24, 2006
r: E rt
Pianm'ng Department 2 5 ,. H, 6
2d Street East
Suite 211 KASLL PLANNING MP1
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City 'ling Board and Zoning Concession
August 8, 2006
Item 4 -- Request from Meadows, Inc. for annexation., initial ,coning, and planned
unit development.
As a property owner with 150 feet of the proposed project noted above, most directly
affected by its development, we are taking this opportunity to present comments and
concerns.
Concerns center around density .of population affecting traffic safety, view, and effective
management of noise, cleanliness, and light.
First and foremost, traffic.
[I] Presently, thought no paring is allowed on Four Mile Dr., ears park on both sides
leaving a single lane for nov�ng cars to pass by. In emergency situations this causes a
delay in services to annexed taxpayers projected to be living in this area as developments
seek and are granted permission to fill the land. Does this match our goals for
development of our jewel of the Northwest?
[2] The present traffic light system does not provide a choice other than waiting til traffic
traveling south on Hwy 93 passes to enter Four Mile Drive coming . north on Hwy 93. As
a. result, often traffic backs up all the way to Buffalo Hill Funeral Hone and further
waiting for ears to turn. The density of cars on the road can only create frustrations we
read about from cities with much larger populations. Does this match ou.r goals for
development of our jewel of the Northwest?
[3] Cars leaving Four Mile Drive seeping to go north on Hwy 93 have a similar wait.
This not due solely to the heavy flow of traffic coming south on Hwy 3, but also
because of the short finning of the light allowing traffic out of Four Mile Drive. This is
currently a problem with the number of vehicles during athletic field heavy use, Church
service hours from the Christian Center and our preferred solitary means of entering and
leaving North Haven Drive. It will increase with the heavy trade due to appear with the
proposed anachronistic `Bypass' traffic feeding into 93, and increased development on
both sides of 93 between Four Mile Drive and Reserve. Adding vehicles associated with
138 residential condominium units can only male less safe conditions for every person In
a vehicle. The safety of other travelers is similarly dimished —imagine walkers and
hikers. Does this match our goals for development of our jewel of the Northwest?
View, and effective management of noise, cleanliness, and light.
— while our specific property is impacted less than others on the north side of North
Haven Drive because of the slope of our land, it is still impacted. In a perfect
world, concer s about where the trash containers will be placed and how well the
property will be maintained on the backside (our view of the property), what
activities the inhabitants Will be prone to in terns of noise level, and what level o
light pollution will be chosen for security and general use would be necessary.
However, past experience has shown s that receptive inhabitants make all the
difference in the world. When we had horses in the pasture, owners would help
s rem them; when farmhouse dog barking from a single family occurred, that
one family finally accepted responsibility for correcting that situation; when the
Kalispell Youth Shelter first came, they respected the light shining directly into
our bedrooms and realigned the light as well as tur ning it down In intensity
With so many residents projected for ownership, these concerns demand attention at
the 'before' stage. Making these concerns part of ownership is essential to `good
neighboring". Does this match our goals for development of our j e rel of the
Northwest
t is said, strong fences rake good. neighbors. We prefer to believe that good pl Ong
provides the opportunity for creating; villages, rather than individual communities
allowing for anonymity, dlsoo ra in g consensus for the good of all.
Respect ly submitted,
ti
Steven an Elsie A Johnson
D
a re
KASLL PLANNING DEPARTMCDIT
July 27 2006
Charles , . and Lorraine S . Wingard
117 N. Haven Dr.
Kai., Mt. 59901
Kalispell Planning Dept.
17 Second Street East., Suite 211
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
We live in the North Haven Heights Subdivision south of the proposed "Meadows"
development. We feel that the proposal by "The Meadows" for 138 condo"s south o
Kids worts is too dense for the area. The road, the stop light on 93 and the area would be
overwhelmed with the added traffic. Even now it is almost impossible to make a left tum
off Hlway 93 onto 4 Mile Dr.
Can you imagine how many more cars, SUVs and trucks there will he on 4 Mile r. if
13 8 its are hw*lt there`? Just close your eyes and think about it.
If It is really necessary to fill this lovely open space, please do so in a manner that will
not make life harder and less beautiful for us all.
Sincerely,k /t:;;;,
Charles J. Wgard
Lorraine S. Wlngard
ee
D ECEOVE
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 " Street East, Suite 211 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Kalispell, Montana a o
Ref. Notice of PublicHearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
.gust , 20, Line Item Number 4.
1. am a property owner at 110 North Haven Drive, Kalispell, Montana.
I have been advised the Meadows,, Inc. has requested annexation, , initial zoning and a
planned unit development UDon 14.65 acres at 430 and 450 Four Mile Drive- The
legally described property is described as Assessors Tract 4, located in Section "
Township 28 NorL, Range 22 West, The Meadows, Inc is requesting annexation into the
City of Kali spell with an R-4 zoning distr i t. The owner is requesting a PUD for 1.
condominiums. The property is gently zoned as SAG-1 .
As a Property owner that will be adversely affected by this PUD, I am forwarding my
concerns to the City of Kalispell, Planning Department regarding this 'UD_ I am asking
that my concerns be made a part of the official planning process and forwarded to the
PlanningBoard and City Council for consideration.
My eonoer s will focus on the following areas: density, Four Mile Drive traffic, and
height of eondormn.i m buildings.
Density: The City groom plan describes this area to be developed at a density level
o —2 units per acre. Currently the North Haven Heights subdivision is the only
subdivision adjacent to the proposed PUD. North. Haven Heights lot sizes are mainly
made of lots that are . 2 to 3 are acre. Having this PUD adjacent to the property line
of six landowners with large lots will possibly affect the retail value of these houses in a
negative way, In order for the Meadows,, Incto accomplish U condominium units in
this PUD, they will have to buildapproximately . condominiums per acre. This equates
out to each condominium being on a tenth of an acre.
I hereby request the Planning Board recommend denial of'the PLD based on the current
request by the Meadows, Inc. I would offer that a less dense area would make for a better
transition between neighbors and would suggest the minimum of 4 condominiums per
acres.
Four -Mile Drive Traffic and Road Surface: Currently in its present state, Four
Mile Drive is unsuitable for the additional traffic that will be generated by the addition o
the residential drivers created by this PUD.
As you are aware, the Sports Complex has added a seeable increase in traffic flows to
Four ale Drive that may not have been properly documented and included in the
Meadows Inc traffic survey. When the Sports Complex is in ill operational mode,
traffic coral ,g and going is hom'fying. Drivers that who live or work in the North Haven
Heights Subdivision,, the Greenery, or the S rinse S b l lston are confronted with a
traffic light configuration that is extremely dangerous. Traffic is observed almost every
day backing up from the Four M e Drive light to the intersection of Summit Ridge Drive -
These drivers are waiting to make a left turn to proceed westerly along Four Mile Drive
due to no delayed turn signal light. When southbo nd traffic on Hwy.93 is r o l e
normally only one or two vehicle are able to make the tum westerly before the light
changes color.
Additionally when the Sport Complex is in operation,, visitors to the complex park their
vehicles on the road surface or grass strip on both sides of Four Mile drive as the number
of visitors to the complex at times out numbers the parking spaces provided by the sports
complex.
The Planning Board needs to tale into consideration the recent purchase of 82 acres by a
Las Vegas company In the southwest corner of Section . The purchase was made with
the intent of developing additional housing. This subdivision in planning will certainly
incorporate a feeder road off Four Mile Drive to connect to the .new neighborhood. It will
most certainly also create a roadway that will connect to the bypass by connecting to the
planned roadway in front of the North Fire Station.. These roads that are quite possibly in
the planrfing phases reed to be considered as factors that would influence traffic flows on
Four Mile Drive. While these numbers are yet to be determined, the current Mate of Four
Mlle Drive is inadequate to accommodate additional traffic in its present state.
The sports complex generates an inormous amount of children r'di g bicycles along Four
Mile -drive. Their safety as well as the safety of the residents from the subdivisions of
North .maven.,, Sunrise and the Greenery need to be addressed with a view for the future
planning of Section and this requested .BUD.
I would recommend that The Meadows', Inc or the City of Kalispell be required to
upgrade Four Mile Drive from the far west end of the proposed PUD to North Haven
Drive. The upgrade needs to incorporate a widerned road surface to a size deterr in d by
the City that adequately accommodates the increase in traffic usage and street parking.
Approximately five years ago the Waterford Company was responsible for upgrading the
roadway when they applied and received their PUD.. do believe the PUD for Waterford
has since lapsed and a requirement irement to .make Improvements to Four Mile Drive may be
null and void at this time. Thus leaving the roadway with no promise of improvement
from a developer.
o summarize this concern., Four Mile Drive needs are adequate road width, si na e for
no parking on either side of the roadway unless a proper road width is created F a traffic
light that has delayed turn arrow at aU four Junctions of the intersection.
Building Height: The residents of North Haven Drive who are directly adjacent to
the proposed PUD will be faced with losing a substantial amount of their view of the
Whitefish Range and Glacier Park due to the condominiums being two stories in height.
The decimated view will undoubtly reduce the retail value of eachresidence. Resale of a
residence s takes into o . * er do ,location. location, and location. Our lots in
North Haven are highly coveted for their view. The property owner view of the
mgr1ificent mountain ranges to the north will be osered by the close proximity of the
condo-miniums to the property line.
would recommend that the condominiums that are located in the . UD and labeled as
Bu
ld' ng , and 14 through 19, be single story condofm'niums. 'while the present view
w . r - �� it i more palatable 'f glstory condormniums were erected,
have given my concerns serious thought after making; a trip to the City Planning Office
to review the matey .l on file concerning this requested annexation and UD. While
change in the valley is impacting everyone daily', we can make charges that are good
changes. Currently, the Meadows, Inc, request for vexation and zoning change does not
n'ng upon good change.
Y'�
S��' ,
Y
{
ferry lies
--
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL (1 �
V (E:
RESOURCES AND CONSERVATIONID1
NORTHWESTERN LAND OFFICE H '; _m6
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.AT[- OF MONTANA
KALISPELL UNIT FOLSON.FIELD OFFICE
0 Highway 93 N., Kali5peH, MT 59901 FCC Box 640, Folsom, -NIAT 59860
Phone: (0) 1- 21, Fax: () 751-2286 Phone: (06) 883-3960, Fay. (406) 883-1874
July 31, 2006
Kalispell Planning Depaxtment
17-2ndStreet East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: The Meadows, annexation, initial zoning and PUD
Dear Planner,
This letter is written as a follow up to your request for comments regarding the above
referenced subdivision. our concerns lie in the area of access as follows:
. As you may be aware, a portion of Four Mlle Drive has been sited without proper
authorization. Research of records indicates that no easement has ever been
purchased or perfected on the north 30-feet of what has been represented as a. -
foot wide Four Mlle Dave corridor between U.S Highway 93 and Stillwater Roach..
Please require that this situation be resolved as a condition of approval.
2. The stoplight at Four Mile Drive and U.S. Highway 93 does not allow for smooth,
traffic movement at times of peak traffic. The wait times associated with making
le, t turns from U.S. Highway 3 cause people to resort to risky driving actions o
4�e `eatl e" indirect intersection approaches. The addition of the traffic from 13
condominium units will exacerbate this hazardous situation. Please require that
are appropriate study of traffic impacts be undertaken, and that intersection, and
intersection control modifications be implemented as may be necessary as a
condition of approval.
Thank cu for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. if you have any questions,
Please .ors"t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Lorch, a.i..p.
Community planner
MT DNRC, Northwest Land Office
Cc: KalC l
e- op :� e en; Sandman; Poncin
G. 11 1 Rea Estate M mt\Spring Prairie Subdivision Comments -Meadows, doe
®.____—__®_.—_.—____._.._.__._—__—s_—__®_a__ �..------------- _.,..,,__ - 4_._- ----- ®.._._®_____...----_Wa____®_.
�e Jo' 440,Ertrym anusgegt -
9 w/]Ancjcm M41nEntry oLy Mlle (f1V@ Secondary Entry
mti:<.. r
NB�i`4'7 3ate1.35�
A planned Unit Development and Condominium Residential Community ToW SM Ana =14AS Aaron Foot," r
Tract 4 Located in Section 1, T28N, R22W, Flathead County ToW Coro ,'*Ium Units -138%&
Aq 1.0f70, 0Uft140a�e
Growth Poky Sta�ad: Utbon Restdertel, 3 to 12 Unb Per acre R •4057, 4was, efergn
s •aso, sum, aoeasn
E dong Zonalp, ftlhoad Can* SAG 10 9vkl�p+.p41q eu ppx rPc
Proposed ZonhV: Kalispell R-4 wMh PUD Overlay s •aso soap s oa epee
THE sp !ram AU."bie DmW 12 urfs per woae sae i s 11 4 10 Gov"
i ToW Unit
f� 9.4 tkssA Perovum:MAN
m 7ia s Uhm 1
0 GWAPG
DOWSZ] ' W Taa:UrssCowre�e 3.72A�,25%3 Cawrage berg+u=pnaI'llLW .�.•
I W ToW Ftivate Road i AMk 26 Asp . 3T back of aft eu 7 71..wtr, 4 unh, x gape.
eu80Yg 14+4W7, � UrdY.<i$eepw
■ ToW P(tvata Rand Le€tgfPf: 2450 Um FL N 1a •i017, 41gtl€f E6a epp
( 0) KMVG 14. 1100, 10*ft 10 Gw"
a � c � CM G ToW Pry Rand Arss: 78,9N $f, 1.81 Acres (12.3 % 3i� Coverage) b Ydlpp 1d • 11Mp. 1G gee 1G QUKIr
,V (D ToW Landscaped Open Space = 272,703 SF, 0.2 Acres (42% SM Caverap) aard4910.11e10,19 4 40 W
5 GG €r f W"N 17. 4W, 4UN 4La apse
ca l e:1 =40 T*W F Walkway a I= LF (9,7W SF), Total 5' Sfdewsk a 2489 LF (12,445SF) aaelap a • 9170.8 € * e GWqW
430 & 450 Four Mile Drive, Kalispell, Montana I Foot 0;mtour lrrtetVal ToW Landscape Open Sys with Tr = 6.77Acres (40% $fbs Covrege) WAft,p, 817s e�°e
INC.Total Area In Clubhouse Fadfy . *M SF, ,00 Ada, ram eewmweK• 1s7xea eauua Fast
Owners: e Meadows Ir=-s?2AMW2csmr e
f — Ass- m fl,dwu,•w Cw1s.. lAeWe • Lnir..l en.ienaru as ^i 'H[ Ante• life AY A!^1 .. ---
—
Meadows-6-25-06.dgn 7l2i2006 10:24:10 AM
Vicinity Chap '6�
I
f 1 2 3 5
q,49
CA 12
16
� 1r �
PU D Phasing
Plan Key
Date: 7-3-06
THE MEADOWS PRO -ER- BCJFDARY
X—RD�i
Y.
Y—waver �a�nC
GR,v4 - ROADPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
TRACT .4 a-Ro w
r�A'tJAGE kR�O`fr
Located in Section 1 , T.28N., R.22W.,
P.M.,M., Ffathoad County, Montana
��....
_ - -----_. __ -- - _.
�_�. FOUBMILEMlYZ
zl
5f.
�s
s
i
SFt
s�ece��sL_"anr
i
l
i
c Z
4
O o
W �
yppvtvU a-T ]Ai£
I$g�E��,RE�i5161i5 � 1 s !93U£
r:o. vaie -- 3r
a„ _ri M1ard�.rx
t
5r?E%T "I?LE
'OOK PAZ:
;7RF3'ry 5Y;
.......... .
F)Uiljir.g 5 Main Floor
jul-9 � zoo()
DOWS
F)uilding 5 l5cconJ noor
1135, jul_� 5 2006'
North
Property
Line
DulwIN 3
Meadow* Loop (k*w)
�M��oows
Z17
South
FrOP&TY
Ums —
mtows �go,,- --oop Building 1.5
15ulUine �12 garage
Building 10 upper ----------------------
r 099290
r
w
n
S.
1
r:�r,+��, •' - � villt��yr�� n �` ��.._ i. r�i 1._ �I�• -. ....._. ..�Z � ---.. �. _ - - _. _�. __. --. _. _.� __ .... - - -_ - -
ti A OXIVS YIEW FROM. 4 MILE PRIVS
-
ThC MCadOW5
4 Mile Dr.
lead ows-LS-Det-7-29-06.dgn 7/31/2006 2:02:29 PM
Secon4ay Enfry
Retention
Enclosure
Typical Screen Fence - Retention Area
yp a
No Sole