Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Staff Report - Crossings at Spring Creek
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE MONTANA REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager VL- FROM: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner Planning Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning SUBJECT: KA-17-06 — Annexation and initial zoning of RA-2 upon annexation KCU-17-10 — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 324-unit multi -family project MEETING DATE: March 5, 2018 BACKGROUND: A request from Brytech Construction, LLC to annex a 15-acre parcel into the city and zone the land RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) upon annexation. The property is currently within the county and zoned county R-1 (Suburban Residential). Water and sanitary sewer service are in the vicinity of the property and upon annexation extensions will be constructed to serve the property. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a request for a conditional use permit for a 324-unit multi -family apartment complex. The conditional use permit application is subject to approval of the annexation request, mentioned above. Multi -family apartment complexes are permitted within the RA-2 Zone provided a conditional use permit is obtained per 27.10.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The proposed apartment buildings will be 3-story (40 feet maximum) walk up garden style buildings with between 12 and 24-units per building, parking garages, private driveways, recreation areas, landscaping and Teton Street extension. The property is located immediately west of Glacier Street, Yellowstone Street and Teton Street. The property can be legally described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20690 in Section 12, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing December 12, 2017, to consider the application requests. Staff presented staff report KA-17-06 and KCU-17-10 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff reported that the proposed annexation and CUP were compatible with the zoning, the growth policy, and the applicant has met the burden of proof requirements. Staff also noted that a significant amount of public comment had been received and that there were still some outstanding questions regarding storm water, traffic and architectural renderings. During the public comment portion of the hearing, there were 18 members of the public that spoke out in opposition to the project. Most of their concerns stemmed around traffic, storm water/flooding, visual impacts and potential for increased crime. The applicant's representative also spoke in regards to the application, at which point he clarified the intent of storm water, the process for a traffic impact study and the phasing plan. There being no other public testimony the public hearing was closed. A motion was presented to adopt staff report KA-17-06 as findings of fact, and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the initial zoning for the property upon annexation be RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office). The Board had a lengthy discussion on the applicant's request and determined that due to the size of the project and its potential impacts they needed more information before proceeding. Accordingly, the Board unanimously continued the application until the following months meeting on January 9, 2018. The Board also directed staff to work with the applicant on obtaining additional information regarding traffic, storm water, pedestrian access and architectural perspectives. Subsequently, the Board once again continued the application at the January 9"' meeting to the February 13, 2018 meeting in order for the applicant to continue to prepare the requested materials. At the Board's meeting on February 13, 2018, the application requests were considered as old business. A motion was presented to continue discussion, which was approved unanimously upon vote of acclimation. The Board continued discussion on the motion for annexation, at which point their discussion determined that the annexation with an initial zoning of RA-2 was appropriate and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. Although the public hearing for both applications had taken place on December 12, 2017, the Board opened up the meeting for public comment regarding the CUP application request. During the public comment portion, there were 15 members of the public that spoke out in opposition to the project. Most of their comments were in regards to the traffic, storm water and size of the project. They did not feel that the information submitted by the applicant was sufficient and that the project should not be approved until a full storm water analysis and traffic impact study are completed. There was also sentiment submitted that the architectural renderings submitted were insufficient. The applicant spoke in favor of the project and clarified his memos for the board. After all the public comment had been taken a motion was presented to adopt staff report KCU-17-10 as findings of fact, and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the CUP be approved subject to the 17 conditions. The Board had a lengthy discussion at which point staff also clarified in detail the building permit process the project would still have to go through. A motion was presented that the existing level of service on the adjacent transportation system needed to be maintained. The motion failed with 2 in favor and 3 opposed due to the fact they felt the existing regulations already take care of the traffic. There was also discussion regarding the site layout, at which time a motion was presented to include additional pedestrian accesses to the adjacent public right of ways. After discussion the Board did not feel the additional accesses were appropriate and the motion failed 1 in favor and 4 opposed. Further discussion concluded that the CUP was appropriate, and the original motion passed 4 in favor and 1 opposed on a roll call vote. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve Resolution 5856, a Resolution to provide for the alteration of boundaries of the City of Kalispell by including therein as an annexation certain real property described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20690 in Section 12, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana. It is also recommended that that the Kalispell City Council approve the first reading of Ordinance 1805, an Ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, official zoning map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677, by zoning certain real property described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20690 in Section 12, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana to City RA-2 (Residential Apartment /Office) in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035, and provide an effective date. It is also recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve a request from Brytech Construction, LLC for Conditional Use Permit KCU-17-10, a conditional use permit for a 324-unit multi -family project with seventeen (17) conditions of approval within the RA-2 Zoning District. The subject property is located within Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20690 in Section 12, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana. FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request would have minimal fiscal impact to the City. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5856 Ordinance 1805 CUP Letter Staff Report KA-17-06/KCU17-10 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2017, January 9, 2018, and February 13, 2018 Public Comment Stormwater, Traffic and Elevation Additional Materials Application Materials Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF RA-2, UPON ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT #KA-17-06 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT #KCU-17-10 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 2017 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request from Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. to annex a 15- acre parcel into city limits with an initial zoning designation of RA-2 (Residential Apartment/ Office) upon annexation. The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 324-unit multi -family apartment complex. The property is generally located at the 500 Block on the north side of Two Mile Drive and immediately west of Glacier Street, Yellowstone Street and Teton Street. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for December 12, 2017, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Planning Department has received the following applications from Whipple Consulting, Inc. for review: • File # KA-17-06 - A request to annex a 15-acre parcel into the city and zone the land RA-2 upon annexation. The property is currently within the county and zoned county R-1 (Suburban Residential). The property is currently undeveloped, however, upon annexation the applicant is requesting to construct multi -family residential apartments (see below). Water and sanitary sewer service are in the vicinity of the property and upon annexation extensions will be constructed to serve the property. • File # KCU-17-10 - A request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 324- unit market rate multi -family apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/ Office) Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit application would be subject to approval of application KA-17- 06, mentioned above. Multi -family apartment complexes are permitted within the RA-2 Zone provided a Conditional Use Permit is obtained per Section 27.10.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The proposed apartment buildings will be 3-story (40 feet maximum) walk up garden style buildings with between 12 and 24-units per building, parking garages, private driveways, recreation areas, landscaping and 1 Teton Street extension. The project would be constructed over three phases with the first two phases consisting of 120-units being constructed in 5-buildings with 24-units each. The third and final phase would consist of 84-units being constructed in 4-buildings and a clubhouse for the development. This report evaluates the two applications in accordance with state and local regulations. The annexation request and initial city zoning classification will be reviewed in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2- 4601 through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition. The CUP will be reviewed in accordance with Section 27.33.080 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A. Owner: Begg Trust 220 Woodland Avenue Kalispell, MT 59901 Petitioner: Whipple Consulting Engineers, INC. 9708 N. Nevada Street, Suite 001 Spokane, WA 99216 B. Location and Legal Description of Properties: The property is generally located at the 500 Block on the north side of Two Mile Drive and immediately west of Glacier Street, Yellowstone Street and Teton Street. The subject property can be legally described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20690 in Section 12, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana. C. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The property is currently an undeveloped field and is within the county R-1 (Suburban Residential) Zone. The county R-1 Zone is defined as "A district to accommodate estate -type development. These areas would normally be located in rural areas away from concentrated urban development, typically not served by water or sewer services, or in areas where it is desirable to permit only low -density development (e.g. extreme topography, areas adjacent to floodplains, airport runway alignment extensions)." D. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting an RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zone. The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the RA-2 Zone is intended to "provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This 2 district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map". E. Size: The subject property is 15 acres. F. Adjacent Land Uses: North: Multi -family residential East: Single-family and multi -family residential West: Undeveloped land and single-family homes on large county parcels South: Multi -family residential and Two Mile Drive G. Adjacent Zoning: North: City RA-1 East: City RA-1 and R-4 West: County R-1 South: City RA-1 H. General Land Use Character: The residential densities vary in this area as it continues to develop from rural residential and agricultural uses to urban residential uses. To the west of the project site areas within county are still either large lot residential tracts or unimproved agricultural lands that will likely develop in the city. To the east, north and south development consisting of low -density single-family, high -density single-family development and multi -family residential development are the primary uses. The residential areas are also a mix of market rate housing and income qualified housing. I. Utilities and Public Services: City water and sewer mains are both within the vicinity of the property to the south, east and north. Both utilities will need to be extended to the property. When annexed, the developer will be required to pay the cost for the utility extension. The design and sizing of these utilities will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to building permit issuance. Sewer: City of Kalispell if annexed Water: City of Kalispell if annexed 3 Refuse: TBD Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative Telephone: CenturyLink Schools: School District No. 5 and Russel Elementary Fire: West Valley Fire District (currently), City of Kalispell Fire Department if annexed Police: Flathead County Sheriff Department (currently), City of Kalispell Police Department if annexed I. ANNEXATION EVALUATION 1. Compliance with the growth policy: Two primary mechanisms for managing growth in the City of Kalispell exist which are to rely on redevelopment and iniill within the current city limits or annexation of outlying areas. A goal of the growth policy is to provide a comprehensive, effective growth management plan that provides for all the needs of the community, is adaptable to changing trends and is attuned to the overall public welfare. The City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035 contains the following goals that are relevant to this particular annexation request: Chapter 3, Community Growth and Design: Goal: Encourage housing types that provide housing for all income sectors and income levels within the community. Recommendation: Maintain a municipal annexation program in conjunction with the City of Kalispell water, sewer and storm drainage systems facility plan to address service to fringe developments. Chapter 4, Land Use - Housing: Goal: Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location. Chapter 9, Infrastructure and Public Services: Goal: Make public water and sewer available to areas that are in close proximity to services as directed by the extension of services plan. Policy: Annexation to the City of Kalispell should be required when water and sewer services are extended to an unincorporated area. In addition, to the three cited goals, the city council adopted an annexation policy in 2011, with a corresponding map as an addendum to the city's growth policy document. The purpose of the annexation policy .19 is to give the planning board, the council, and the development community direction when property owners outside of the city limits are requesting municipal services and annexation. The property proposed for annexation falls inside the city's direct annexation boundary. 2. Municipal Services: Municipal sewer and water mains, are located within the vicinity of the property to the north, east and south and can be readily extended by the applicant to serve the site when the property undergoes development. The site is currently protected by the West Valley Fire District and the Flathead County Sheriffs office. The applicant has submitted a Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District. At the time of annexation, the property will be served by the Kalispell Fire Department. The site lies within 2 miles of fire station 61 and is readily serviceable by the city fire, police and ambulance services all of which now respond to the immediately adjacent neighborhood. Given the level of existing services available to and in place, annexation of the property will not overburden the municipal services in place. 3. Distance from current city limits: The subject property is bordering city limits on its east, north and southern property boundaries, thus annexation will serve to be a logical expansion of the existing city limits. 4. Cost of services: Once annexed to the city, full city services will be made available to the property owner. Any necessary infrastructure associated with this development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and Construction standards and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply. If annexed, the property owner will be extending and connecting to city sewer and water at the time of development. The analysis is only an estimate based on a variety of assumptions. The analysis does not take into consideration changes in methods of assessment and estimated costs associated with services. The information can only be used as a general estimate of the anticipated cost of services and revenue. The cost to serve the land proposed for annexation is shown in the attached cost of service analysis - Initial Annexation. Currently, the subject property is vacant land and there will be no services provided to 5 the property. Based on the city's taxation and assessment policies, the property will generate approximately $3,333 in taxes and $2,288 in assessments. Based on this analysis, the annexation will be net gain to the city of $5,621. The cost to serve the development of the project is shown in the attached cost of service analysis - 100% buildout. Based on the city's taxation and assessment policies, the property will generate approximately $108,477 in taxes and $10,632 in assessments. Cost of services for the property is approximately $114,356. Based on this analysis, the project will be a net gain to the city of $4,753. In addition the city will collect $1,928,159.00 in one time impact fees. II. INITIAL ZONING EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2- 303; M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.29.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently zoned county R-1. The applicants are requesting city RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) to accommodate the proposed multi -family apartment for the entire 15 acres. The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the RA-2 Zone is intended to "provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map". 1. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy? The City of Kalispell Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "High Density Residential", which is the appropriate land use designation for the RA-2 Zone. High Density Residential should be developed at densities up to 20 units per acre, with some as high as 40 units per acre. The RA-2 Zone allows for multi -family development up to 29 units per acre (1 dwelling per 1,500 square feet), well within the allowable densities anticipated by the High Density Residential land use category. The High Density Residential land use category also states that "mixed uses" are appropriate. The RA-2 Zone permits office space as a rel permitted use, thus the ability to do a mix of residential and office is anticipated. The proposed RA-2 Zone is consistent with the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035 in the following ways: Chapter 3, Community Growth and Design: Goal: Encourage housing types that provide housing for all income sectors and income levels within the community. Chapter 4, Land Use - Housing: Goal: Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location. The requested RA-2 Zone provides for the ability to construct multi- family residential units within an area that anticipated high density housing. A recent market study conducted by Property Dynamics - Mill Creek, Washington, indicated that in the summer of 2017 there was a 0% vacancy of multi -family units within the Kalispell area, indicating a strong need for additional housing options. 2. Will the requested zone have an effect on motorized and non -motorized transportation systems? The requested zone will potentially have a large effect on motorized and non -motorized transportation systems if the property is developed, as the RA-2 Zone allows for higher density than the current county R-1 Zoning District. It is anticipated that higher density housing will create additional traffic in the immediate area. Accordingly, any development of the property that creates 300 or more vehicle trip per day would require a traffic impact study prior to construction. The traffic study evaluates the impacts the development has on the traffic system and indicates mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service. Any development would be required to maintain the same level of service that currently exists. Mitigation could include such elements as a new traffic light, stop signs, new turn lanes, road improvements, road widening, additional access points, etc. Note that any development of vacant land will cause an increase in traffic. The purpose of the TIS is to mitigate traffic impacts that create a negative or unsafe condition, not just merely an increase in traffic. 3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in the case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the public. All municipal services including police and fire protection, water, and sewer service will be made available 7 to the area. The site is 2 miles from fire station 61 with good response time. 4. Will the requested zone promote the public health, safety and general welfare? The requested zoning classification of RA-2 will promote the health and general welfare by restricting the permitted land uses to those that are intended to be compatible with the adjoining residential uses. The conditional use permit process, which is part of the RA-2 zone, is intended to address specific issues of compatibility. The RA-2 also anticipated potential office use. Offices are generally considered compatible uses to multi -family and general residential and mixed use neighborhoods as they provide employment, typically generate fewer trips and are open limited hours relative to around the clock residential activity. S. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Setback, height, and lot coverage standards for development occurring on this site are established in the RA-2 Zone to insure adequate light and air is provided. 6. Will the requested zone promote compatible urban growth? The requested RA-2 Zoning District is compatible with the urban land use pattern that has established within city limits in the area, which consists of a mixture of single-family, single-family townhome, low -density and high -density multi -family development. The multi -family developments to the immediate north are developed at densities similar to what would be expected within the requested RA-2 Zone. Additionally, the Kalispell Growth Policy anticipates the subject property to be developed as multi- family, as it is within the High Density Residential land use category. 7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? Upon annexation public services will become available, or can be provided to the property. Any public infrastructure installed for the project will have to meet city standards, which facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, parks, and other public requirements. Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are available. 8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? M. The land uses permitted by the RA-2 Zone are compatible with the adjoining properties as many of the neighboring properties contain uses similar to those that are permitted in the RA-2 Zone, with the exception of office space. Office space is not a use that would negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, as any development of office within the RA-2 Zone would need to be of neighborhood scale, as mentioned earlier. 9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the character of the district? The proposed zoning is consistent with the High Density Residential land use category designation of the property, which anticipates multi -family development. The proposed zone is also within character of the area, which consists of a mixture of single-family, single-family townhome, low - density and high -density multi -family development. No clear development pattern has been established, although multi -family residential is the primary housing option in the vicinity. 10. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people? The City of Kalispell Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "High Density Residential", which is the appropriate land use designation for the RA-2 Zone. High Density Residential could be developed at densities up to 20 units per acre, with some as high as 40 units per acre. The RA-2 Zone allows for multi -family development up to 29 units per acre (1 dwelling per 1,500 square feet), well within the allowable densities anticipated by the High Density Residential land use category. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the RA-2 Zoning Districts will promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other properties in the area. It is also likely neighboring property values will increase as city services will become more readily available to neighboring properties to the west. 12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the municipality? Urban -scale residential development should be encouraged in areas where services and facilities are available. In this case water and sewer lines are located immediately north, east and south of the property. The proposed zoning is consistent with the growth policy future land use designation and is compatible with current city zoning and existing land uses in the immediate area. E III. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This application has been reviewed in accordance with the conditional use permit review criteria in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (KMC 27.33.080). A conditional use permit may be granted only if the proposal, as submitted, conforms to all of the following general conditional use permit criteria, as well as to all other applicable criteria that may be requested: 1. Site Suitability: a. Adequate Useable Space: The subject property is 15 acres in size and is of adequate size in order to accommodate the proposed buildings, parking, recreation areas and storm water detention. The subject property is flat making the entire site developable. The southern third of the property is designated 100-year floodplain by FEMA. Accordingly, development of the southern area depends on acquiring a floodplain development permit, or letter of map revision from FEMA prior to development within the 100-year floodplain area. Until this permit is obtained, development of phase 2 and phase 3 of the project will not be possible. b. Height, bulk and location of the building: There are thirteen (13) 24- unit buildings, one (1) 12-unit building and a clubhouse, parking garages, parking spaces, storm water detention, recreational areas and landscaping. The height and bulk of the buildings are limited by the RA-2 Zoning, which allows a maximum height of 40 feet and 50% lot coverage. The buildings are proposed to be 3-story 40 feet tall and the development has a lot coverage of approximately 25%, both within the permitted range of the RA-2 Zone. The neighboring properties within the city are within the R-4 and RA-1 Zones, which have maximum heights of 35 and 40 feet, respectively. As stated above, the height limit of the RA-2 Zone is 40 feet, which is similar to the city zones surrounding the property. Out of the 14 buildings, 4 are 110 feet from the eastern property boundary, which borders primarily single-family residences. All the other proposed buildings are setback even larger distances from the single-family homes. The 4 buildings closest to the single-family residences are also separated by large setbacks ranging from 40-300 feet on the eastern side of the development. With the large setbacks, the perceived building height and bulk will be negligible. Although the development to the north of the subject property is also multi -family residential, the 110-foot setback is maintained, once again mitigating any perceived height or bulk issues from neighboring properties. In addition, the 10 developer is proposing a 20-foot wide storm water detention area around the development. The storm water detention acts as a buffer around the development and is proposed to be planted with trees further buffering the development from neighboring properties. The development will have 292 parking garages for their residences. The parking garages are located along the perimeter of the development, shielding the neighboring properties. The garages will be setback 20 feet and will act similarly to a privacy fence, while at the same time providing an amenity to the developments residents. C. Adequate Access: The subject property is adjacent to Two Mile Drive on the south, which is an improved collector street, and Teton Street on the east, an improved local street. The development extends Teton Street to the properties western property boundary providing access into the site and also includes private driveways looping through the site that provide access to Two Mile Drive and Teton Street. The intent is for the main access to be from Two Mile Road. Teton, as an access provides additional east/west access to a local street network and is intended to function as a secondary access to the site. The development will be constructed in phases with buildings 1-5 being constructed as part of the first phase. For multi -family developments, a second access must be in place prior to building permit issuance of 200 units or more. The development is proposed as 324 units and 200 units will be reached with phase 2 of the development. For neighborhood integrity, staff recommends that the second access to Two Mile Drive be installed at the first phase. Two Mile Drive will function as the primary entrance into the development, so should be installed immediately to encourage traffic onto Two Mile Drive, rather that Teton Street and Hawthorne Avenue. d. Environmental Constraints: The southern third of the property is designated 100-year floodplain by FEMA. Accordingly, development of the southern area depends on acquiring a floodplain development permit, or letter of map revision from FEMA prior to development of that area. 2. Appropriate Design: a. Parking Scheme/Loading Areas: The development shall comply with the Off -Street Parking and Design Standards as set forth in Chapter 27.24 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. For 324 units the zoning code requires 486 spaces and the applicant has provided 687. The parking spaces are comprised of 292 garages, 368 standard and 27 ADA. Accordingly, the development exceeds the minimum parking requirement by 201 parking spaces. 11 There were concerns with the parking arrangement for building 7, which is proposing parking for the building along Teton Street. The Site Review Committee recommended that a standard street design for Teton will be required and additional parking for building 7 needs to be accounted for elsewhere on site. 16 of the parking spaces were accounted for along Teton Street. These parking spaces will not be permitted due to their location in Teton Street. Although those parking spaces will not be accounted for the development is still considerably over parked in relation to the zoning standards. Extension of water/ sewer lines throughout the development may result in loss of parking stalls, and or garages depending on location of extensions. Staff is not concerned with the potential loss of parking spaces because the development is considerably over parked. b. Lighting: Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance sets standards for all outdoor lighting on commercial or residential structures. Exterior lighting installed in conjunction with the development will be reviewed for compliance with the zoning ordinance during site development review. C. Traffic Circulation: The multi -family project gains its primary access from Two Mile Drive to the south and Teton Street to the east, which are improved public streets. In the case of emergency, access to the units will be taken from either one of these streets. The internal private driveways within the development meet the minimum width requirement for adequate traffic circulation. Note that Yellowstone and Glacier Streets also extend to the west with the purpose of extending a logical street pattern as does Teton. This project only proposes to extend Teton westerly. d. Open Space: The proposed development has considerable amount of open space in the middle of each phase development. The open space areas will consist of grass, paths, basketball court, pickleball court, playground equipment, swimming pool and clubhouse. In addition, the development meets all of the required setbacks, which are open space areas. e. Fencing/Screening/Landscaping: The developer is proposing a 6 feet tall vinyl fence on the eastern, western, northern and portion of the southern (main entry) boundary. No fencing is proposed along the Teton Street extension. Any fences shall be installed in accordance with Section 27.20.040 (Fences, Walls, Hedges) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with 12 the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan for the entire site shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department prior to issuance of the building permit. f. Signage: The development shall comply with all of the sign standards as set forth in Chapter 27.22 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. At this point no signs are being proposed. 3. Availability of Public Services/Facilities: a. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the city. The developer will be required to pay the cost for the utility extensions throughout the site. The existing sewer main in the alley between Yellowstone and Glacier Street is only 3 feet deep, which will make connecting to this main difficult. A downstream capacity analysis will also need to be conducted prior to building permit issuance. Connecting to the sewer mains north of the project site may require upgrades to the existing lift stations to accommodate the additional flows that will result from the development. In either case, the developer is responsible for engineering the system and upgrading as necessary to accommodate the development. Extension of sewer lines may result in loss of parking stalls, and or garages depending on location of extensions. b. Water: Water service will be provided by the city. The developer will be required to pay the cost for the utility extension. Serving the lot will require access to the city's water line north of the property, as it is the only line in the vicinity of the property that has adequate pressure to serve multi -family development. The water lines to the east and south are low pressure and can't serve multi -family development due to the increase demand of the fire sprinkler requirements. Each building will need its own water meter that will require the water main to loop throughout the site. The water main will need to be placed so that they are not located under parking spaces so that the city always has access to the mains for maintenance. Consequently, extension of the water lines may result in loss of some parking spaces and or garages depending on location of main extensions. As sated above the site is proposing a significant number of parking spaces in excess of the minimum required number. C. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed and constructed per the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Guidelines. Final design will be approved by Kalispell Public Works Department prior to building permit issuance. Prior to receiving a building permit the developer will need to submit a 13 construction storm water management plan to the Public Works Department. This plan will need to show how storm water will be treated and discharged as well as where it will be directed during construction activities. There is a history of flooding along Two Mile Drive near the property, which is mostly ditch flow. There has also been reports that the subject property holds water at the southeast corner of the property. Neighboring properties to the southeast have also been subject to flooding in the spring. This corresponds with the FEMA 100-year floodplain as mapped on the property. The City of Kalispell Construction and Design Guidelines require that the site does not convey any additional water offsite from its historical rate pre - development. This provision assures that the development does not impact neighboring properties due to the additional impervious surfaces. Upgrades to Two Mile Drive to an urban standard should eliminate the flooding issues currently happening along the ditch on Two Mile in front of the property. The development does account for storm water in the design by having a 20-foot wide detention area around the development. The storm water from the development will be routed via curbs and drains into the 20-foot wide detention area and outfall at historical rates. This design will likely need to be modified due to Kalispell Design Guidelines for storm water, which have 20-foot setbacks for storm water detention from property lines. Although a 20-foot area around the property is shown, with the required setback area incorporated into the design there will be no area provided for storm water. Because of this, staff recommends that the developer continue to evaluate the proposed storm water system and develop a more concrete design based on current city standards. As proposed, there may be changes to the site plan that significantly alter the layout, i.e. - driveways, parking stalls, parking garages, etc. Lastly, a Floodplain Development Permit will be required from FEMA in order to develop the southern half of the property. A floodplain permit will likely include fill material in order to bring the subject property above the flood elevation. Beings the floodplain originates with Spring Creek to the west, any fill brought onsite would likely reduce the amount of flooding occurring onsite and the properties to the east. A hydrology report will need to be completed in order to determine the impacts any fill will have on the floodplain as part of the floodplain permit process. d. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up has not been determined at this time, however, will likely be provide by the city. Prior to building permit issuance the location of these trash receptacle areas will need 14 to be approved by Public Works. The landfill does have capacity for any waste associated with this development. e. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. There is adequate access to the property from the public road system and the buildings will be constructed to meet current building and fire code standards. Station 61 is 2 miles from the site and response time will be good. The buildings will be sprinkled per City building code. f. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed use. g. Streets: The primary street frontages are Teton Street and Two Mile Drive, which provide access to the greater City of Kalispell circulation system. A traffic impact study will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit to specifically determine any additional impacts to these and adjacent streets. Any impacts identified will have to be addressed by the developer. Note that any development of vacant land will cause an increase in traffic. The purpose of the TIS is to mitigate traffic impacts that create a negative or unsafe condition, not just merely an increase in traffic. h. Sidewalks: The developer will need to install sidewalks along the entire property frontage of Two Mile Drive in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Guidelines. Sidewalks will also be required on site as part of the extension of Teton Street. The developer has interconnected the three phases of development with an internal path system connecting the different recreation areas to one another. L Schools: This site is within the boundaries of School District #5. An impact to the district may be anticipated from the proposed development depending on the demographics of the residents. On average 162 students K-12 would be anticipated from 324 dwelling units. j. Parks and Recreation: Section 27.34.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance requires 162,000 square feet of recreational land or a combination of equivalent recreational amenities based on 500 square feet of land per residential unit based. The applicant intends to construct a basketball court, pickleball court, swimming pool, clubhouse and playground equipment. The recreational value of this amenity package appear to exceed the minimum requirements of 15 Section 27.34.060 of the value of the recreational building permit for each requirement. 4. Neighborhood impacts: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The actual amenities will be determined at time of phase to verify their compliance with this a. Traffic: A Trip Generation and Distribution Letter was submitted by the developer for the multi -family development. The report outlined in the letter followed the standards for traffic letters as required by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The letter indicates that the apartment complex will generate 2,155 average daily trips (ADT) with 166 trips occurring in the peak morning hour and 201 trips in the peak evening hour. The letter states that based upon the project's location on an arterial and the project's multiple means of access, it is their estimation that the proposed project will not have any impact upon the existing transportation system. Accordingly, the developer requests that the project be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. The traffic letter submitted by the developer also indicates that 45% of the trips from the development will use Hawthorne Avenue (accessed via Teton Street). Hawthorne Avenue serves a residential neighborhood and it is unclear what impacts the proposed development will have on that street, especially at the intersections of Three Mile Drive and Two Mile Drive where traffic currently backs up during peak hours. Staff has received numerous public comments regarding the additional traffic that will be generated by this project. Although the developer is requesting that a traffic study not be required, the city requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for any development that generates 300 or more vehicle trips. In this case, the development is generating 2,155 vehicle trips; therefore, a TIS will be required prior to building permit issuance. A TIS is a much more detailed report that analyzes existing traffic counts, additional traffic counts created by the development and turning movements. The traffic study will also determine the existing level of service post development. A new development cannot reduce the level of service that the transportation system currently operating at. If the development does reduce the level of service, improvements (i.e. - traffic light, stop sign, turn lanes, road widening, etc.) may need to be installed to mitigate any impacts in order to maintain the current level of service. Note that any development of vacant land will cause an increase in traffic. The purpose of the TIS is to mitigate traffic 16 impacts that create a negative or unsafe condition, not just merely an increase in traffic. Eagle Transit currently has a bus route running along Hawthorne Avenue, providing an alternative mode of transportation for tenants in the development. There are two bus stops in close proximity to the development. One is located at the intersection of Hawthorne Avenue and Liberty and the other located along Financial Drive just south of Two Mile Drive. Both bus stops are a short walk from the proposed development. b. Noise and Vibration: The development of the property as multi- family residential will create additional noise and vibration. Primarily the aforementioned will be generated from automobiles and residents of the units. This issue has been mitigated through the design of the site which has put the parking areas internal with the parking garages and storm water on the outside of the development buffering the subject property from neighboring properties. The buildings themselves are 110 feet from neighboring property lines limiting the intrusion of noise from the residents within them on neighboring properties. C. Dust, Glare, and Heat: The use of the property as a multi -family residential development would not generate any unreasonable dust, glare, and heat other than during construction. d. Smoke, Fumes, Gas, or Odors: The development of the property as multi -family residential will create additional smoke, fumes, gas and odors. Primarily the aforementioned will be generated from automobiles. This issue has been mitigated through the design of the site which has put the parking areas internal to the site with the parking garages and storm water on the outside of the development buffering the subject property. e. Hours of Operation: Since the development is residential there will be no unusual hours of operation. 5. Consideration of historical use patterns and recent changes: The property is currently undeveloped and has been an agriculture area located at the immediate edge of developing Kalispell. Recent history has seen a mixture of single-family, townhome, low -density and high -density multi -family development encircle this site on 3 sides. Although undeveloped, the property is a logical extension of multi -family housing as it is bordered by multi -family housing on two sides. The multi -family developments to the north are developed at similar densities to what is being proposed. Development of this site and the extension of services 17 into the property will likely continue to alter this neighborhood as municipal growth and the natural progression of the city pushes westward. The area immediately to the west and northwest of the site will likely develop in the City of Kalispell in the foreseeable future due to adjacent city services, bypass access, and desire for infill development. Currently, the city has a 0% multi -family occupancy rate, so the need for additional housing options is great. The development will be market rate housing with many amenities, giving another quality housing option for residents of Kalispell. 6. Effects on property values: The proposed development will have a mixed impact on the neighborhood. The elimination of a flood plain in the neighborhood will assist in greatly improving property values. The multi -family housing project proposes an amenity package and garages, which are a significant upgrade to other multi -family housing projects in the neighborhood. Additionally, the design of the project is generally directed internally with landscaping, fencing and garages as a buffer along the entire perimeter. Both of these will create either a neutral or a beneficial impact in the neighborhood. Conversely, traffic generation and how traffic is handled will possibly be the greatest concern. Proper design can serve to mitigate this; improper design can be a long-term problem. 7. Conclusions: The proposed zoning of RA-2 complies with the growth policy designation of High Density Residential and is an appropriate designation for the subject property. RA-2 Zoning provides for multi -family development that is an anticipated form of infill growth. City services are in the vicinity and can be provided to the property in order to service the development. However, due to the size of the project and its potential impacts staff does have some concerns including the following: 1) Storm Water - While the applicant will have to comply with city storm water standards, there are concerns with the current design. The storm water area shown on the site plan is not adequate due to the city requirement that no storm water facility is to be located within 20 feet of a property line. Their design infringes on the 20-foot setback requirement. Accordingly, in order to appropriately account for storm water the site plan will likely need to be altered. 2) Traffic Impact Study - While the applicants will have to comply with the findings of a TIS, the level of information provided at this time has raised questions in the eyes of the neighborhood. There are concerns on how the existing transportation system will function. Due to the size IN. and scale of the project it may be appropriate for the applicants to provide additional information as to how the additional traffic will impact the neighborhood. 3) While the applicant have submitted a design that appears to mitigate height and bulk issues the public has expressed concerns to the contrary. Although it appears that the height and scale of the development have been mitigated through setbacks, landscaping and screening it is unclear how it will actually look from neighboring properties. Accordingly, staff has spoken to the applicant requesting additional renderings of what the site will look like from adjoining properties. To date we haven't seen them but look forward to having them at the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-17-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office). Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report KCU-17-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit, be approved subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General Conditions 1. That commencement of the approved activity must begin within 18 months from the date of authorization or that a continuous good faith effort is made to bring the project to completion. 2. That the development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted architectural and site plan drawings in regards to setbacks, landscaping, parking, recreational amenity and height. In particular, the building plans shall incorporate decks, roof pitch, colors and materials as shown on the architectural renderings. 3. Architectural renderings are required to be submitted to the Kalispell 19 Architectural Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. S. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/ sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department with approval prior to construction. The water main shall be extended to the southern property boundary. 7. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted to the Kalispell Building Department stating that for each phase all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The terms and conditions of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase. 9. Two Mile Drive shall be upgraded to an urban standard in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards the length of the property. 10. Teton Street shall be extended to the western property boundary and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. 11. The project access onto Two Mile Drive shall line up with Cooper Lane on the south side of Two Mile Drive. 12. Access to the site from both Teton Street and Two Mile Drive shall be constructed with Phase 1. 13. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of the building permit. 20 14. Trees shall be planted along the perimeter of the property of height and intensity to obscure the garages and apartment buildings. The tree planting plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of building permit. 15. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of land shall be provided. 16. A Floodplain Development Permit shall be obtained from FEMA prior to any construction in the 100-year floodplain. 17. This project shall be submitted to the Kalispell Site Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for any phase to ensure all conditions have been met or properly addressed. 21 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING February 13, 2018 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were: Chad Graham, George Giavasis, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, Steve Lorch and Ronalee Skees. Christopher Yerkes was absent. Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lorch moved and Skees seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2018 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. BOARD MEMBER SEATED Young recused himself from Southside Estates because he is representing the applicant. SOUTHSIDE ESTATES A request from T Development, LLC for a ajor subdivision to be known PRELIMINARY PLAT — PHASE 2 as Southside Estate — Phase 2. The request would s ivide 9.6-acres of land into 30 residential lots and 3 utility lots for storm wa . The residential lots are broken up into 4 single-family lots and 26 townhouse lots for a total of 56 housing units. The subject property was recently annexed into the City of Kalispell and is located within the ty R-4 and RA-1 Zoning Districts. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KPP-17-04. Nygren revied the staff report and noted that the applicant has applied for a variance from the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations regarding block lengths and right-of-way extensions. Nygren went over the variance request and the findings f variance approval. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report #KPP-17-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat Southside Estates — Phase 2 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSIO one. PUBLIC HEARING Rory Young — Jackola Engineering, 2250 Hwy 93 S - representing applicant; asked that condition # 6 in the staff report be re -worded to state that the sewer capacity analysis be completed to verify the existing lift station has enough capacity, not the existing system; feels this will clarify the fact that it is only the lift station being tested not the entire city sewer system. MOTION - ORIGINAL Skees moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-17-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat Southside Estates — Phase 2 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis felt that it would be short sided by not requiring a right-of-way extension to the south and that they would be assuming nothing would happen on those properties. After lengthy discussion the Board felt there were too man Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2018 Page I 1 obstacles with a right-of-way extension to the south and agreed that the variance should be granted per the findings mentioned in the staff report. MOTION — AMEND CONDITION #6 Lorch moved and Skees seconded a motion to amend staff report #KPP-17-04 to amend condition #6 to be reworded from its original text to read — A sewer capacity analysis shall be completed on the existing sewer lift station located at the north entrance of Southside Estates Phase 1 to verify the system has enough capacity. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL — AMENDED MOTION The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL MOTION The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER SEATED Young returned to his seat STEVE LORCH RESIGNATION Chad Graham announced Lorche's resignation and presented him with a certificate of recognition. WFHTEFISH STAGE GROUP HOME A request fr ra Jorgenson for annexation and initial zoning of a lot located ANNEXATION at 1373 White h Stage Rd, along with the rezoning of a portion of the lot already within the The zo equest for the property is R-4 (Residential). STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz, representi alispell Planning De artment reviewed Staff Report #KA-17-07. Staff recommen that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-17-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the propeky be annexed and that the zoning for the *014 entire property be R-4 (Residential). "W BOARD DISCUSSION Young inquired about the CUP application. Jentz advised that staff recommended to the applicant that they acquire a CUP from the county for the group home (8 or fewer) in order to expedite the process on their end. Once they are annexed into the city, the city will then honor that CUP and the applicant can move forty more quickly. Jentz also noted that group homes could not have any requirements placed on them any different than a single-family home, thus whether the CUP was approved in the County or City it would result in the same thing. PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION Kauffman moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KA-17-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and that the zoning for the entire property be R-4 (Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS KA-17-06 — A request to annex a 15-acre parcel into the city and zone the land CROSSINGS @ SPRINGCREEK — RA-2 upon annexation. The property is currently within the county and zoned ANNEXATION, ZONING & county R-1 (Suburban Residential). The property is currently undeveloped, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT however, upon annexation the applicant is requesting to construct multi -family residential apartments. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2018 Page 12 KCU-17-10 — A request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 324-unit market rate multi -family apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit application would be subject to approval of application KA-17-06, mentioned above. MOTION — REMOVE FROM TABLE Skees moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to continue the discussion for the Crossings @ Springcreek — annexation, zoning and conditional use permit. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-17-06 and #KCU-17-10. BOARD DISCUSSION Young asked staff for clarification on the updated traffic study and updated storm water information and if the applicant will still be required to meet the development standards for design & construction. Nygren advised that yes, if the annexation, zoning and CUP are approved through City Council then the applicant will have to apply for buildin permits, at which point Public Works and the Site Review Committee will ve to sign off before any building permits are issued. Nygren also clarill e potential impacts if the property were developed within single-family homes in an R-4 Zone. Nygren noted that a far as bulk and scale the impact could be greater due to similar height between the R-4 and RA-2 zone; howev e setbacks would be much less with a single- f ly development. MOTION FROM 12/12/17 — Skees moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning ANNEXATION & INITIAL ZONING Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-17-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City ilthat the property be annexed and the iitial zoning for roperty annexation be RA-2 (Residential %inc AO% Apartment/Office). ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously a roll call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT CROSSINGS @ Mary Miller — 30 Teton St — opposed to project, concerned about crime, SPRINGCREEK CONDITIONA additional traffic and losing her view. Feels the project is too dense for the area. USE PE Marilyn Driscoll — 22 Glacier St — opposed to project, concerned about the property being higher than the existing properties once all the fill dirt is brought in, feels the project is too dense for the area and will not fit in at the RA-2 zoning since all the zoning around is RA-1 or less. Janice Rauthe — 6 Glacier St — opposed to project, concerned with snow melt from the garages surrounding the outside of the development. Asked about lighting and fire hydrants. Feels the additional traffic will cause problems. Larry Doty — 445 Meadow Hills Dr — concerned with additional traffic the project will bring as well as pedestrian access to get across Two Mile Dr. Diane Etter — 301 Aspen Loop — opposed to project, too much additional traffic, too dense for the area. Rosie Higham — 76 Hawthorn W — opposed to project, too much traffic. Concerned with additional crime and flooding from the higher elevation. Dan Savaize — 1305 3rd Ave E — mother lives on Teton St. — opposed to project, density is too high and will bring on too much additional traffic. Ben Lard — 254 Caroline Pt Rd, Lakeside — grandmother, Darcy McGlenn lives at 212 Three Mile Dr., feels the board should take more time to review project due to the density and feels the public is not being heard. Ronda Howell — 51 Hawthorne — concerned about the sewer connections proposed in the staff report and if the existing lift stations will be able to handle the additional sewage. Dave Mumby — mother lives @ 21 Yellowstone #3 — opposed to the project, feels the project is too dense, buildings are too tall and the additional traffic will cause a "demolition derby". Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2018 Page 13 Richard Turbiak — 14 3rd St E — was confused about the way the agenda was structured for tonight and why this item is considered old business and not a part of the public hearing. Graham clarified that the public hearing had already happened on 12/12/17 for the annexation and zoning. Mike Merchant — 288 4th Ave EN — feels the project is too dense and the buildings are too high. Nik SzalM — 15 Glacier St — concerned with snow removal and where the snow will be put, the groundwater and drainage. Craig Seminoff — owns the single story 4-plex at 66 Hawthorne — feels the project will bring too much additional traffic specifically on Hawthorne between Two Mile and Three Mile. Kelly Mower — 191ris Ct — project will bring on too much additional traffic and is concerned that pedestrians f be able to walk safely from point A to point B. Ahinn Todd Whipple — applicant — Consulting Engineers Inc — 21 S. Pines, Spokane Valley, WA — responded to public comment starting with a brief explanation of the traffic study and that the 3 second delay is an average and they will be able to get a better traffic study once the snow is gone. The 3 second average delay is an increase to the existing delays being experienced. He advised they want to work with staff and the community and that pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, storm drainage, snow removal, etc. are all things they are taking into account and will work with the city to do what is needed to make the project work. MOTION — CROSSINGS @ Skees moved and Young seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning SPRINGCREEK CONDITIONAL Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-17-10 as findings of USE PERMIT fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis does not have concerns with the density but feels that the design of the project does not suit the character of the neighborhood and feels the design should be more site specific and done in a more traditional manner. Feels it needs to be more pedestrian friendly. Graham asked staff to walk them through what will happen in the spring with the traffic impact study and where the data goes from there. Jentz explained that if the project is approved by City Council the developer will have to apply for the building permit and before that building permit can be approved Public Works will require that a traffic study be done, among other things, and then Public Works will take that data and advise the developer what standards/mitigation improvements they will have to meet in order to get the project approved. MOTION — ADD "LE F Graham moved and Giavasis seconded a motion to add a condition to staff SERVICE" CONDITION TAF report #KCU-17-10 that states "the existing level of service on the adjacent REPORT #KCU-17-10 transportation network shall be maintained. The level of service shall be defined by the traffic impact study and approved by Public Works." BOARD DISCUSSION Graham proposed the condition in order to assure the neighboring community that the existing level of service on the transportation network would be maintained. Young asked Graham to confirm that he was adding language that is either going to be conducive to or contrary to a city regulation. Graham confirmed, Young advised he cannot support that because we have a regulation for a reason and that City Council would be the only ones that could change that. Graham advised that he is just trying to get a noticeable process for the public. Jentz advised that Public Works will review the studies and determine if the level of services have dropped. Per the city requirements, if the level of service drops then mitigation will need to be implemented in order to maintain the existing level of service. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2018 Page 14 VOTE BY ACCLAMATION - ADD The motion failed 2-3 on a vote of acclamation. "LEVEL OF SERVICE" CONDITION TO STAFF REPORT #KCU-17-10 MOTION — ADD PEDESTRIAN Giavasis moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to add a condition to staff ACCESS CONDITION TO STAFF report #KCU-17-10 that the developer add pedestrian access via Glacier Street REPORT #KCU-17-10 and 2 pedestrian access points onto Two Mile Dr. at the SW and SE corners of the property. BOARD DISCUSSION Young feels that this would only provide easy access for criminals in and out of those locations. Kauffman agrees and feels that the pedestrian access may be a detriment to the development. 46 VOTE BY ACCLAMATION - ADD The motion failed 1-4 on a vote ' clamation. "PEDESTRIAN ACCESS" CONDITION TO STAFF REPORT #KCU-17-10 ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL MOTION The motion passed 4-1 on a roll calll%,, - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NEW BUSINESS Jentz advised the board and the public that the Crossings at Spring Creek is planned to be on the March 5, 2018 City Council agenda at this time. Nygren advised the board that next month there will be a work session on Rockwood Ranch for an annexation, PUD and Preliminary Plat. Additionally, they would be reviewing two subdivision applications on Village Loop Drive where the applicant' are proposing to subdivide existing lots. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:35pm. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. and located in the Kalispell City Council hers, 201 l't Ave East. Chad Gra President APPROVED as Kari Hernandez Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2018 Page 15 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMNIISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 9, 2018 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning CALL Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were: Chad Graham, George Giavasis, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, Steve Lorch and Ronalee Skees. Christopher Yerkes was absent. Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kauffman moved and Young seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2017 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT Ryan Remington — 616 Willow Glen Dr. — asked board their opinion of annexing some property they own on Willow Glen into the city and putting a mobile home park on it. Jentz advised Ryan to schedule a meeting with the Planning Staff to discuss the possibility. BOARD MEMBER SEATED Young recused himself from Southside Estates because he is representing the applicant. SOUTHSIDE ESTATES A request from Team Development, LLC for a major subdivision to be PRELIMINARY PLAT — PHASE 2 known as Southside Estates — Phase 2. The request would subdivide 9.6- acres of land into 30 residential lots and 3 utility lots for storm water. The lots are broken up into 4 single-family lots and 26 townhouse lots for a total of 56 housing units. The subject property was recently annexed into the City of Kalispell and is located within the City R-4 and RA-1 Zoning Districts. STAFF REPORT None. BOARD DISCUSSION Graham advised that staff received an email from the applicant that they are requesting to continue the item to the February 13, 2018 meeting and asked the board for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION Lorch moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission continue staff report #KPP-17- 04 to the February 13, 2018 planning meeting at the request of the applicant. BOARD DISCUSSION Lorch asked if public comment would be allowed even though the item is being continued. Jentz advised yes however there was no public comment. Nygren also noted that the application would be noticed again and that the public hearing would be held on February 131. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 9. 2018 Page ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER SEATED Young returned to his seat APPLEWAY 4-PLEXES — A request from Steven Maw for a conditional use permit for multi - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT family housing within the B-2 Zoning District. The multi -family project would include two 4-plex buildings for a total of 8-units. The buildings will be 2-story and have an 1,800 square foot footprint each. The project will also include parking, walkways and landscaping. Multi -family housing is permitted within the B-2 Zoning District provided a conditional use permit is obtained per Section 27.13.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-17-11. Nygren went over the project including zoning, land uses, site layout, parking, storm water, elevations, trash pickup and recreational amenity. Nygren noted that the applicant is going to have to work with the parks and recreation department to expand the required recreational amenity space. There is a 4,000 sq. foot requirement and the applicant is currently only meeting about half of that. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-17-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION - ORIGINAL Kauffman moved and Young seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-17-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Young — asked for confirmation that there is a condition in the staff report that the applicant must meet public works design standards. Nygren confirmed that there is. Young then asked about the required 4,000 sq. foot recreational amenity space. Nygren advised that the applicant could provide additional amenities based off of the market value of undeveloped land in order to make up for a lack of recreational area. Giavasis — feels that developer could reduce the parking spaces since they have more than is required. Feels this would create more green space and also help with their recreational amenity requirement. Graham — is happy to see more affordable housing coming to the community. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 9, 2018 Page 12 ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Crossings @ Spring Creek — continued from the previous meeting on December 12, 2017 to today's meeting. Nygren advised the board that the developer wishes to continue the discussion again to the February 13. 2018 meeting so they can finish gathering all information the board has requested. MOTION — CONTINUE Lorch moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City DISCUSSION TO FEBRUARY 13, Planning Board and Zoning Commission continue discussion of the 2018 MEETING annexation and conditional use agenda items at the next board meeting on February 13, 2018, where they could consider the additional information they had requested. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS Nygren briefly discussed next month's meeting agenda and reminded the board that it will be Steve Lorch's last meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:16pm. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. and located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 1s1 Ave East. L&9? - - Chad 6rahiairn President APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kari Hernandez Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 9, 2018 Page 13 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2017 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning CALL Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were: Chad Graham, George Giavasis, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, Steve Lorch, Ronalee Skees and Christopher Yerkes. Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kauffman moved and Skees seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2017 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CROSSINGS @ SPRINGCREEK — KA-17-06 — A request to annex a 15-acre parcel into the city and zone ANNEXATION, ZONING & the land RA-2 upon annexation. The property is currently within the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT county and zoned county R-1 (Suburban Residential). The property is currently undeveloped, however, upon annexation the applicant is requesting to construct multi -family residential apartments. KCU-17-10 — A request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 324-unit market rate multi -family apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit application would be subject to approval of application KA-17- 06, mentioned above. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-17-06 and #KCU-17-10. Nygren outlined the applications submitted and clarified that he would be outlining both applications as part of his presentation. He further went on outlining the details of the project including the zoning, growth policy, existing land uses and adjacent land uses, site layout, recreational amenities, buildings, access, storm water, FEMA floodplain and traffic. Staff also spoke to the large amount of public comment that had been received and outlined their concerns. Staff recommended that the Board consider whether additional information was needed from the applicant regarding traffic, storm water and perspectives of the buildings due to the scale of the project and its potential impacts on the neighboring community. BOARD DISCUSSION Members of the planning board discussed and asked staff for clarification in regards to the required 20 foot storm water setback from property line, the difference between an RA-1 and RA-2 zone (densities), storm water retention and design, and parking. Young also asked staff for clarity of the potential development of the site in the R4 single-family zone and the ability to then develop 35 feet tall houses 5 feet from the property line. The Board also inquired about if a traffic impact study has or would be performed and how the flood lain would Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 12, 2017 Page I 1 impact the project. Staff outlined the process that assures the conditions of the project are implemented during the building permit process. Staff further explained the requirement of a traffic impact study and also city requirements for storm water. Nygren and Jentz reviewed these items with the board and reviewed the conditions in the staff report that touch on these items. Sorensen clarified the FEMA floodplain permits process for the fill that would be brought onsite. PUBLIC HEARING Todd Whipple (applicant) — Whipple Consulting Engineers Inc — 21 S. Pines, Spokane Valley, WA — Answered board questions about storm water retention, traffic, parking and reviewed the amenities of the proposed project. He also offered to answer any questions the board may have. Kim Christopherson — attorney representing Mary E. Miller — 30 Teton St. — advised that her client does not oppose the project but has some concerns about flooding, height of the proposed buildings and increased traffic. Marilyn Driscoll — 22 Glacier St — Concerned about the density and height of project, the proposed RA-2 zoning, flooding and the length of the project and how long the residents will have to deal with construction dust, etc. Richard Turbiak — Citizens for a Better Flathead — 35 41 St W — asking that the public hearing being extended to give the public more time to process the size of the project and to discuss the project with the board. Ronda Howell — 51 Hawthorn — concerned about the extension of Teton St and the traffic load it will add to Teton and Hawthorn and the density of the proposed project. Laura Casteneda — 4 Iris Court — Feels that the amenities proposed are not something Kalispell will use and that condos or single family residences would make more sense in this location. Rosie Higham — 76 Hawthorn W — worried about her property value decreasing if the project is approved, she feels she would lose her views because of the height and density of project. Keith Ridgway — 18 Glacier St — concerned with pedestrian traffic and feels there are not enough sidewalks in and around Hawthorn and the surrounding neighborhood right now and that this project would make it worse, especially for kids trying to walk to and from school. AIso has some concerns about the floodplain. Earl Holst - 1442 Two Mile Dr — Feels there are too many apartments in that area now and opposes the project. Ben Lard — representing his grandmother Darcy McGlenn Lard who lives at 2I2 Three Mile Dr. — advised her property is the property that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 12, 2017 Page12 borders the end of Liberty St. He is letting the board know that his grandmother will not allow an easement through her property for this project just like she denied the one that the city asked for years ago when the low income apartments were built at that time. She is also concerned with how much private land may be taken through eminent domain. Connie Malone — 6 Iris Court — feels that the zoning should be RA-1 not RA-2 and that a traffic study should be required. Also feels that there are not enough sidewalks around the area for the existing density, let alone adding more. Dave Mumby — representing his 92 year old mother who lives in the area — concerned about the increased traffic this project will bring and feels that Two Mile Dr is already not suited for the existing traffic. Also feels that such a high density project will bring too much additional crime. Sarah Arrigoni — 15 Yellowstone St #2 — Concerned about crime that a project of this size might bring. She is worried that Kalispell does not have the emergency services, snow removal services, etc. to handle the additional density. Wanda Adamavich — manager of Gateway Apartments at 308 Two Mile Dr. — 282 4" Ave WN — feels that Two Mile Dr. cannot handle the additional vehicle and foot traffic that the additional density would bring. Janice Rauthe — 6 Glacier St — concerned that Two Mile Dr. will not be able to handle the additional traffic and that flooding will become an issue. Dan Savage — representing his mother Audrey Savage — 17 Teton St — feels that the amenities proposed are not useful here and that a traffic study and hydrology report should be mandatory before moving the project forward. Also is concerned with an increased crime rate. Brian Luke — representing his mother Emma Davis — 16 Teton St — concerned with flooding. Sam Tombarge — 505 Two Mile Dr — concerned with flooding from nearby creek. Patrick Malone — 6 Iris Ct — upset that there is no posting or signage of a pending project on the proposed site, feels the public was not notified properly due to the size of the project, asked the board to review the list of questions he gave them at the start of the meeting. Stated that the City would be responsible for any flooding of adjacent properties if the Board were to approve the project. MOTION - ORIGINAL Skees moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-17-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office). Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 12, 2017 Page 13 BOARD DISCUSSION Board members addressed some of the public concerns mentioned during public comment including policies regarding noticing adjoining land owners, the storm water drainage, traffic impacts and future infrastructure. There was lengthy discussion with the applicant regarding the ability to develop a traffic study, which the applicant indicated is difficult in the winter time but if there were existing traffic counts they could develop a study in time for the next meeting. The Board further discussed the size of the project and felt that additional information was warranted before they could make a decision. The Board directed staff to work with the applicant and obtain additional traffic information based off the traffic counts the applicant could obtain, clarification of how storm water was being handled, building perspectives for adjoining property owners and pedestrian access in the vicinity of the property. MOTION — CONTINUE Skees moved and Lorch seconded a motion that the Kalispell City DISCUSSION C JANUARY 9, Planning Board and Zoning Commission continue discussion of the 2018 MEETING annexation and conditional use agenda items at the next board meeting on January 9, 2018, where they could consider the additional information requested. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. OLD BUSINESS Staff advised the board that the Downtown Plan had been approved by the City Council. NEW BUSINESS Planning Board elected Doug Kauffman as the new Planning Board Vice President. Skees moved and Young seconded. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45pm. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. and located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 151 Ave East. ad GraWam Ka Hernandez President f� Recording Secretary 4D/ APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 12, 2017 Page 14 Kathleen Boycott Nelson 12 Teton Street Kalispell, Montana 59901 406-270-5409 Date: October 26, 2017 To: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner From: Kathy Boycott Nelson, Resident Re: Teton Terrace Subdivision Teton Terrace was originally built as a low-income housing area. About half of the units are still owned by the original owners, most of which are single elderly women. These are all duplex and tri-plex units except for my unit, which is a house. I have lived here since 1998. We have a homeowner's association. All the units are owned by the resident(s), and we are not allowed to rent our units. This is a quiet neighborhood. Behind our house is an apartment complex on Yellowstone that has people coming and going and dogs barking. If you had to decide which neighborhood is noisy, it would be Yellowstone over Teton. If there is a need to put streets through, then all of the streets should be put through to equalize the increased traffic. But if it is possible, I believe my neighborhood would appreciate staying blocked off from this future rental project. Date: 11/27/17 To: Neighbors in the area of a proposed apartment complex off Two Mile Drive From: Marilyn Driscoll 22 Glacier Street Kalispell, MT 59901 406-752-7841 Regarding: 324 unit apartment complex File #KA-17-06 and File #KCU-17-10 Dear neighbors, On 11/25/17 1 received a notice in my mail from the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. [ have attached a copy of this mailing for your review. They only had to notify property owners that are within 150 feet of the project, so most of you were not notified. The proposed project would take up the entire empty field that borders 2 Mile Drive and the end of Glacier Street, Yellowstone Street, and Teton Street, as well as the South border of all of the existing apartment complexes on Liberty Street. This property is currently not in the City limits, so the owners of this field are first requesting to annex 15 acres into the city limits. Their second request immediately following the approval of their property being zoned into the city limits, is to request a conditional use permit which would allow them to build 324 apartments. I have the following concerns as a home owner in this area: 1. The density and height of these apartments (40 feet high/3 stories/multiple buildings), far exceeds any apartment complexes in our entire surrounding neighborhood. There are no apartment buildings over 2 stories high. As a matter of fact, several of the existing apartment buildings that are considered 2 stories, are actually built part way into the ground, as a type of daylight basement design, which keeps the overall height of these buildings, much lower. [ do not believe that these proposed buildings could be built in that manner, due to the very high water table in that field. Z. This new complex would hook in to existing city water and sanitary sewer mains. I have lived in my home for 37 years and have never seen any of the underground services updated. I have concerns and questions about water pressure being affected, and the massive amount of additional sewage that would be generated. I would certainly want more information about how that may, or may not, affect us. 3, The last FEMA map that I have, shows that field in a high level flood plain. Currently, if that field is too frozen in the springtime, for the snow to melt into the earth, it floods the entire field, and then floods the alleyway at the end of Glacier/Yellowstone, and also floods my yard. It is extremely important to note that our neighborhood has absolutely no storm sewers. The storm water that we already have, has nowhere to go but into the earth. This has caused many problems with ground water flooding our basements and crawl spaces, in addition to some of our yards. I have a significant concern, that when that entire field is nothing but concrete and pavement, the massive amount of ground water that normally sits out there in the springtime like a lake, will have absolutely nowhere to go but into our neighborhood, because we sit at a lower elevation. Two Mile Drive has been built up so much over the years, that it acts like a dike, keeping ground water in our neighborhood. There is also no culvert under the connecting road to Two Mile Drive, at the end of our streets, so it also has nowhere to go, and just backs up. When you consider the rain and snow coming off thousands of square feet of roofs, as well as the snow removal from all of their parking lots, it does cause great concern. If we have no storm sewers, neither will they. 4. The additional traffic that would be created by having several hundred vehicles each day, coming and going from that complex, would have a significant impact on our area. They are proposing extending Teton Street, so all of the traffic coming out of the back of this huge complex, on the East side, would be funneled down Teton, intersect with Hawthorn Ave. at the "T" (since this is not a through street), and then each vehicle would stop at the Stop sign and have to immediately either turn left or right onto Hawthorn Ave. Hawthorn Ave. is already a very busy street with people actually parking part way onto the sidewalks to try to give through traffic enough room for two cars to pass each other. I do not know if they propose to create a a- way stop sign at that intersection to try to prevent collisions or not, but if so, it would back up traffic for blocks very quickly, Hawthorn Ave. is a main connection between 3 Mile Drive and 2 Mile Drive. I think it has gotten even busier with the addition of the highway bypass, due to the fact that you cannot get on the bypass on Two Mile Drive, you must cross over to Three Mile Drive. For the traffic coming in and out of this proposed complex on the South side, they would be on Two Mile Drive. Two Mile Drive is a very narrow road, with no shoulders, and no sidewalks, and a very deep and steep ditch on both sides of the road. The back of my property borders Two Mile Drive, and on several occasions over the years, I have had vehicles slide off the road into the ditch, sometimes even hitting the fence to my back yard. I feel that if huge additional amounts of housing developments are going to be annexed into the city, then this road absolutely must be improved first to be able to safely handle the increased traffic. 5. There is no question that a complex of this size will cause the value of our properties to go down. The view we once had of the hills to the west, will be completely gone, blocked by a wall of apartments. There will be a large increase of noise from so many people in such a small space. There will be a dangerous increase in the amount of traffic on our sub -par roads. There will be increased damage to our properties by ground water. I was born and raised in Kalispell. I raised my children here. I have seen many changes over the years as Kalispell has grown. 1 respect the fact that people need housing. I also respect a property owner's right to request annexation into the city limits. My request in this particular situation, is that the scale of this project be greatly reduced to a much more reasonable scope that compliments the existing surrounding neighborhood, rather than dominating it. I also am requesting that the concerns I have listed here be addressed by the proper authorities in Kalispell, who represent the citizens of our town, before approval of any kind is given for this project. For those of you who would like their opinions heard, questions answered, or who have suggestions, please note the following: The meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 2097, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Ave. East, Kalispell. You may call 406-758-7940. If you have written concerns, they must be submitted prior to the meeting date, at the above address, or emailed to tannin kalis ell.com I am also submitting a copy of this letter to our Planning board, so they may have a chance to address my concerns, and be made aware of the information I have given to my neighbors who were not fortunate enough to be included in the very limited mailing. The fact that such a major issue as a development of this size, was brought before us on such short notice, right between the two most major holidays of the year, is not lost on me. However, I hope any of you who are concerned about our town, will take the time to let your thoughts be known by the people who represent the citizens of Kalispell. Thank you very much. Marilyn Driscoll Cc: Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission November 30, 2017 Kalispell Planning Board and Zoning Commission 201 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: The Crossings at Spring Creek Housing Project Dear City Planning/Zoning Chair Person: Please accept the following comments as those of our family and many neighbors within the Teton Terrace Subdivision and HOA that we have spoken with over the past several days since receiving written notice of this proposed annexation, zoning and conditional use permit request. We live immediately east of and adjacent to the property in question. We are a community of largely low -middle income, semi -retired to elderly neighbors west of Hawthorn. We are a quiet community of solid homeowners. We purchased here because of the small scale, homeownership quality on what we thought was a privately owned cul-de-sac. We have numerous questions and concerns regarding this project and request: 1. Legal/Adequate Public Notification. While those neighbors who are within the 215 feet perimeter to the development did receive the printed notice, with very limited details, in a timely manner when went online like instructed by the notice I was unable to access any staff reports or detailed information about the development — not even the owner/developers application. When I emailed staff and requested copies of the 291h I was told they would not be available until late on December 5" — only 4 working days before the hearing. Clearly too little time for working neighbors to review and comprehend the full impacts of such a large development. While legal standards may be met, it is certainly not sufficient notice for the average citizen to become fully informed and knowledgeable of a project of this scope. (Staff did later email me and inform me that the applicant's information has been uploaded). As a community I think we can do better. Recommendation: Have all required and appropriate documents and site postings complete and available to the public at least 30 days prior to a public hearing for a parcel and project of this scope and scale. 2. Growth Policy and Annexation. The basic concern here is that there is no market analysis justifying this project. With so many existing subdivisions that are either not fully built out or more recently approved (with literally hundreds of units within 1 mile radius) it is highly speculative of the City to consider annexing land with a somewhat vague phasing plan ("build out will be market defined" — meaning what exactly 2 years or 20). There will be a rather large infrastructure investment in water, sewer, drainage and all sorts of transportation improvements (or impacts) with no evidence by the applicant that there is market justification for the project let alone the upzoning. The "burden of proof" of a compelling public benefit is on the petitioning party. The only reason any municipality should accept annexation requests is that it is in the broadest public interest of the city and consistent with all its existing plans and policies, After all, the property owner can immediately develop their property under County rules if development is their ONLY motivation/need. Nothing is stopping them from fully utilizing their property rights. Recommendation: Have the developer complete o full market and fiscal impact analysis of the project under current and near term housing market conditions or share one with neighbors if one already exists. The developer prove there is a compelling public benefit to the residents of Kalispell. Right now it only appears there are multiple impacts and potential costs that would exceed tax benefits for many years to come (unless fully paid by the developer and impact fees are not mentioned at a11).. 3. Transportation and Circulation. Access to this property can only occur along a very narrow and very rural or local roads - Two Mile Drive and Teton. There are no shoulders and limited setbacks along Two Mile. Cars often exceed posted speed limits. Traffic at the intersection of Two Mile and Hawthorn can often be stacked up 10 cars during school morning hours when buses and parents taking their kids to the Middle School turn north on Hawthorn trapping workers, like us, from making an easterly turn onto Two Mile to travel downtown. With no sidewalks, no bike path, very limited shoulders, etc, this stretch of road and intersection is already over standard levels of service and is very dangerous. Our family and many neighbors regularly bike, walk or jog along Hawthorn and Two Mile often traveling west toward the bike path and fully understand how dangerous this stretch of Two Mile is between Meridian and Hwy 93 Alternate can be, already. lust imagine it with an additional 2,592 vehicle trips each day calculation based upon an average occupancy of two persons)!! (Note this is a higher estimate than that provided via ITE data by the project engineer of 2,155. In both cases these estimates are likely low given the history and practice of resident habits in NW Montana. I know personally and as family, we make nearly twice as many trips as we did when living in downtown Spokane where there was much easier access to school, work, cultural events, recreation sites, etc. and of course immediate access to public transportation services as well as designated bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. for pedestrian movement). With the Flathead County Fairgrounds, Kalispell Main Post Office, Gateway Center and many state government offices, not to mention the many subdivisions, apartment complexes and residents west of Hawthorn all utilizing Two Miie Drive this road should not sustain or carry any more traffic without it becoming a major arterial with likely signalization required at Hawthorn and the projects ingress/egress point — and who will pay for that Any additional traffic coming north on Hawthorn toward Three Mile Drive will be a huge disaster as sight lines, travel speeds and the already very congested intersection will make this area practically useless. (During school pick-up hours it is now nearly impossible to turn west off of Hawthorn, creating a very dangerous situation for school children who often walk or bike at this age unattended). Another concern is Financial Drive. This is a very short street that actually ends up emptying into the Gateway Mall. Traffic regularly bypasses Meridian and Glenwood when traveling east on Hwy 2 and cuts north through the mall parking lot to access Two Mile Drive. This is not only a hazard for occupants/users of the Mall but it also creates a bottle -neck and safety challenge between Hawthorn and Financial (which are only separated by say 50/60 feet). It can be assured that anyone from the Crossing wishing to travel west on Hwy 2 will cut through the Mall using Financial Drive, Teton, Financial and even Glenwood have been designed and built as local, non -through streets. Given design specs on Hawthorn and Two Mile it is a huge stretch to even see them as minor arterials, though that is how they function. Lastly, the proposed circulation plan only implies further westward expansion into other properties owned by the Edna R. Begg Trust by suggesting that Teton Street will be extended. The long-term implications and impacts from this are never discussed. Assuming this likelihood/eventuality, it only makes sense to plan for northern access points at Liberty and ultimately Three Mile Drive. The only true north -south through street anywhere in this area is Meridian (until you hit Springcreek which is several miles west), meaning all traffic west of that point MUST come east to travel north -south. Glenwood, Hawthorn, Financial and every other street westward all deadend. These are local only streets never designed or intended for traffic volumes that would be generated from the development of many hundreds of housing units and thousands of occupants. A comprehensive traffic study between Meridian, Hwy 2, Three Mile and Springcreek absolutely must be completed before this or other development proposals come forward. (The extension of Yellwostone Street should also be incorporated into any revised circulation plan/traffic study to better distribute east/west movements). Clearly neither the City, County or Montana Department of Transportation envisioned developments of this scale along Two Mile Drive or an appropriate intersection and access to Hwy 93 Alternate would have been built. With so much developable land by the Begg Trust, Snyder Trust, Nodsle Trust, Kat Kove LLC and others either immediately adjacent to or in close proximity to this project it is now likely that further annexation and rezoning requests will be forthcoming and create even more significant transportation problems. The entire street system west of Hwy 93 Alternate between Hwy 2 and Four Mile Drive to Springcreek is totally inadequate for this level of suburban/semi-urban development patterns. This has been a very rural and predominantly agricultural area with no urban investment in basic infrastructure which will only result in huge future costs and intermediate congregation. Recommendation: The developer pay for a comprehensive traffic study prior to being granted approval. The City design a 3-lone road for Two Mile between Meridian and Hwy 93 Alternate. The City secure approval from Montana Department of Transportation to add ingress/egress on Hwy 93 Alternate at Two Mile Drive. The City secure impact fees from the developer to cover their fair share of all transportation impacts. The City request the developer to approach Eagle Transit about extending regular bus service into and through the project (and that new bus stops/shelters be added along Two Mile from Meridian to Hwy 93 Alternate. The City to secure commitments by Flathead County to improve%xpand Two Mile Drive between at least Hwy 93 Alternate and The Crossings at Spring Creek (or Cooper Lane if that's their entrance). The City have the developer pay their fair share of transportation impacts like signolization at Cooper Lane, Teton and Hawthorn and Hawthorn and Two Mile (in addition to all street and pedestrian/bikeway street improvements along Two Mile). Access to the Crossings must come the north for efficiency, safety and emergency response (ideally through arterial level roads). 4. Housing Mix in Neighborhood. As is clearly evident with housing stock between Meridian to the east, Three Mile to the north, Highway 2 to the south and Hwy 93 Alternate to the west, this Westside Kalispell neighborhood already is home to the most apartments and congregate living facilities in all of Northwest Montana. While it logical that vacant land be infilled inside the Hwy 93 Alternate, it seems inappropriate to burden this relatively small neighborhood with so many additional apartment units (especially when nothing specifies that they will specifically be workforce and/or affordable housing). And sense there is no real site plan submitted with the proposal we are only provided a very generic CAD drawing of what a "typical building" might look like from an exterior perspective. But nowhere in the application do the proponents specify how many studio, one/two/three bedroom units there will be. So while they state they want approval for 324 "UNITS" if these were all three -bedroom "UNITS" it could push occupancy to between 972 and 1,296 residents with average occupancy. So what number of residents did they use to make their transportation trip generation estimates from — if we don't know their estimates are invalid in a multi family project. Recommendation: the Project Proposal be redesigned to achieve a balance of homeownership to renters and that the multi family component be balanced between market rate and workforce housing to achieve a more balanced neighborhood. The City request the developer approach area affordable housing providers/managers (like the Community Action Partnership) to consider master lease possibilities to guarantee affordable/workforce housing. The City request the developer approach affordable homeowner developers like Habitat and the NWMT Community Land Trust to acquire lots for long-term affordability. 5. Teton Terrace and HOA. It would appear from comments made by the project engineer on Rage 2 of their November 8, 2017 Memorandum that Teton Street would become an access point to the project since no fencing will be proposed there. I quote "Teton os an access provides additional east/west access to higher order transportation facilities and is expected to be used as an ingress and egress point to the overall site." It is further noted in this Memorandum that Teton will have new monument signing noting the name The Crossing at Spring Creek — presumably at Hawthorn thereby directing north -south traffic into the project via Teton. It is unfortunate that the property owners and/or project designers have not taken the opportunity to meet with homeowners along Teton or with the Teton Terrace HOA to discuss site and traffic impacts. The proponent's trip generation/distribution letter is in error when it states that both Teton and Hawthorn streets serve mostly "multi -family" land uses. This area is characterized as single-family detached (mostly) with some detached townhouses. No multifamily units like proposed by the developer can be found west of Glenwood (except along Liberty). The proponent's basic assumptions about trip distribution on page 4 of their report also seem in total error when they assume that 65% of all daily trips will likely exit the project using Two Mile Drive. In fact they never actually address/answer the questions as to which road(s) occupants will likely use to enter/exit the site — which is a huge omission. With only two access points Two Mile and Teton and with 10 buildings and 240 units closer to Teton than Two Mile and with no improved signalization on Two Mile it is very safe to assume that 74% of all ATDs will be along Teton which is a narrow, 2-lane local street with on -street parking and currently only serves 10 single-family homes/units of mostly semi -retired folks. That means in reality, that Teton could conservatively carry of 1,595 tri s gr day. Recommendation: Teton street be permanently closed where it ends now of the east side of the subject property and then restart internal to the project as it likely will extend further westerly as additional property sunder the some ownership will develop it in the future. Also, that a new northern entrance connecting to Liberty Street be designed and developed to accommodate planned and future development which is likely to occur west of this subject property and under the some ownership. 6. Environmental Impacts. It is noted in the project engineers November 8, 2017 Memorandum on page 3 that adverse noise, light, dust, odors, fumes and vibration impacts will occur during construction but no mitigation measures are identified. The very point of disclosure is to mitigate such impacts. Recommendation: The City should require a mitigation plan for any construction related impacts and then impose restrictions (like Dark -Skies) on lighting and any other projected impact (like say vibration from home -based business, VRBO rentals, or bed and breakfast operations if allowed (or preferred these types of uses would all be prohibited). 7. Zoning and land Uses. According to Zone RA-2 the project could allow 14 non-residential permitted uses ranging from catering businesses to jail facilities to police/fire stations and even schools. Because the applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit they may be granted permission to add bed and breakfast operations, community facilities, group homes, homeless shelters, etc. None of these uses are consistent with the single-family character of the surrounding neighborhood — from all sides. Nowhere do the proponents indicate or specify that they intend to place restrictive covenants on the property which would in any way limit or control any of these otherwise municipally permitted uses. If I rent a 3-bedroom unit what would restrict me from using a spare bedroom as a homebased business or renting out the two other bedrooms for short term rentals. All these other uses have more impacts beyond a single-family residence. Recommendation: That the property, if annexed, be designated RA-1 and no higher so as to better blend with the existing neighborhood. As a worst case scenario the project's buildings 4, 9 and 12 be reduced in scale to 12 units rather than the proposed 24 and limited to 2-stories to be more consistent with adjoining neighbors. The City should require and review restrictive covenants before considering a rezone. 8. Site Plan. The application does not even include a formal site plan. Only the trip generation/distribution diagram provides any idea of how the land will be used and where buildings will be placed (and then without any measurements). What is concerning is the obvious goal of maximizing density and occupancy since these buildings push all parking to the perimeter. By appearance but without any narrative or visual interpretation is appears that possible carports also ring the perimeter of the development as a way of accommodating the approximately 648 resident -only parking spaces that will be required. There is also no discussion of signage, lighting, the existing capacity of City sewer, water, drainage, fire and police protection, or related site suitability, design, or availability of public services that are customary for a conditional use permit. Recommendation: A full and complete/detailed site plan be submitted before rezoning and conditional use permit review begin. 9. Landscape/Buffering Plan. Very indicative of the entire submission, this is not a plan at all. Though it's an interesting CAD drawing of some type of possible non-native vegetation, there is NO plan. There are no type and species of trees, plants, shrubs or their height, no maintenance and management plan, no irrigation system, etc. Recommendation: The developer be required to submit full plans, including landscape, when seeking considerotion for a conditional use permit. The entire community as this point should know exactly what they ore getting when granting permit approval. In closing, the annexation, zoning and conditional use permit submission and supporting documents by the developers and their consultants are grossly inadequate for a project of this scale and magnitude. A neighborhood of nearly 1,000 residents could occupy this site with inevitably more growth westerly and yet this request contains no housing market data, no traffic study, no definitive build-out/phasing plans, no traffic mitigation strategies, no suggested transportation improvements or cost sharing, no construction mitigation measures, no detailed landscaping plan and no environmental or fiscal impact statement. Having worked over 30 years ago as a regional planner in the Puget Sound this level of information would have never been acceptable for a project of this scope — I hope it is not now in Kalispell with all the new information we have regarding community impacts. Sincerely, Patrick Malone 6 Iris Court, Kalispell M7 59901 Planning Department 201 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 November 30, 2017 Dear Staff of the Kalispell Planning Department, I am a 5 year resident/home owner at 6 Iris Court and am writing to you because I received a notice about a development plan, Crossings at Spring Creek, that will negatively affect my neighbors and my family if you proceed as put forth on this notice. I. Using Teton Street as your extension would be the worst scenario and makes little sense for traffic flow. Our Teton Terrace Association, of which we all pay HOA fees, operates as one intact neighborhood and may even have by laws that prevent you from breaking it up. There is no need to use Teton Street when Liberty and Two Mile make more sense and are already arterials with stop signs, etc. Plus, with the 93 Alternate Route connecting into Three Mile, new residents in Crossings at Spring Creek would most likely travel north of our intact neighborhood to access 93 Alternate or Three Mile to Meridian. If headed downtown Two Mile is the logical access. 2. Please also consider the number of units you are proposing. Law abiding and caring neighbors are greatly affected by use of space and natural beauty. Your landscaping details are unclear but do not look adequate for the number of units you have planned for multi -family. Multi- family means multi -stuff. Overcrowding is never successful in the big picture and results in more cost to the city with law enforcement, refuse removal and general abuse. I plan to attend your hearing but wanted to respectfully send these thoughts to you today. Thank you, for your consideration and willingness to work with your residents for safe and happy living. Sincerely, Connie Malone 406.314.4867 Home Owners of Teton St Kalispell, Mt 59901 2017 • • • • • • • Dec. 7, 2017 To: Kalispell Planning Department Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Rory Young Steve Lorch Chad Graham Ronalee Skees Christopher Yerkes Doug Kauffman George Giavasis Re: The Crossings at Spring Creek (KA-17-06 & KCU-17-10) We the undersigned residents of Teton Street in Kalispell would like to take this opportunity to express our strong opposition to The Crossings at Spring Creek proposals that will come before the Planning Board on Dec. 12, 2017. This massive project — 324 dwelling units on 15 acres — threatens to adversely affect our residential neighborhood and we urge the Planning Board to reject not only the annexation and zoning request but also the conditional use permit application. As currently designed, Crossings at Spring Creek will create a dangerous exponential increase in vehicular traffic on Teton Street, destroy views to the west from our neighborhood and pose a flooding risk to our neighborhood due to the acres of impermeable space proposed in an area with no storm sewer system. Although the developers indicate that Two Mile Drive will be the main entrance, they also state that Teton "is expected to be used as an ingress and egress point to the overall site." It would appear that Teton Street will be the de facto main access to the apartment complex, which means many of the 2,155 vehicular trips per day (a suspiciously low number for 324 apartments) will be down a normally placid Teton Street. The development application further denotes Teton Street would provide "additional east/west access to higher order transportation facilities." Only the most imaginative mind could construe Hawthorn Avenue as a "higher order transportation facility." What kind of gridlock will ensue when thousands of vehicles a day are attempting to navigate Teton Street and Hawthorn Avenue? The engineering report for The Crossings at Spring Creek optimistically states that the "proposed project will not have an impact on the existing transportation system." No impact? This project's size alone screams "major impact." The engineers have the temerity to ask that the project be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. That would be an egregious mistake: This project demands more extensive traffic analysis. While traffic is our foremost concern, it is not the only one involving The Crossings at Spring Creek. Erecting a phalanx of 40-foot tall buildings will completely disrupt the skyline view from the Teton Street neighborhood and block its view shed. We also worry about drainage that will be impeded by the development, and drainage issues are only tangentially discussed in the engineers' application. For these reasons, we urge the Planning Board not to approve the annexation and zoning request and conditional use permit application. At the very least, the sheer scope of The Crossings at Spring Creek — 14 buildings, 324 units and a $30 million investment — demands that the Planning Board undertake a thorough investigation of the density and impacts from this project. Thank you for your attention, Kari Hernandez From: Fred Merrick <fmandzm@bresnan.net> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:30 PM To: Kalispell Planning Board Subject: New housing development off Two Mile Drive To the Board, I am concerned about the huge housing development than the planning board has approved for this area. My first concern is that there is currently a number of apartment complexes in this area. An additional complex of this size would create traffic congestion. A study to see what type of impact this would have has been proposed. Should not the study take place before the planning board gives approval? My second concern is the type of housing being developed. I am not against low income housing. There is already low income housing on Liberty Street. My concern is that two complexes of this nature, in such close proximity, could cause problems. I would think that the board would consider a housing development that would include homes rather than apartments. It would be a much better fit for this area. Thank You, Fred Merrick 94 Hawthorn W Kari Hernandez From: Andrea Davis <davandrea@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:29 AM To: Kari Hernandez Subject: Comment on Crossings at Spring Creek Dear Kalispell Planning Board and Zoning Commission - My mother who lives at 16 Teton Street has made me aware of the proposed development to the west of her neighborhood. Let me start by saying I know there is great need for housing in Kalispell. I believe the people living in that neighborhood also recognize this. After all, the development was initiated through a partnership with the City of Kalispell to encourage affordable home ownership options for those working in Kalispell and aging citizens. My mother, at 73, still works everyday and has lived there for 16 years. The public comments generated by area residents are salient points that absolutely should be considered prior to any approval of requests to annex and up -zone the property. I see that the long term growth plan has identified this area as high density residential. However, it's not clear the necessary investments in infrastructure improvements are coinciding with this development proposal. *Road infrastructure - Two Mile Drive remains a 2-1ane road, as it was when it was a country road when I was born in 1977. There is no shoulder, no bike lanes nor sidewalks. How could you consider approving a high density apartment complex on a road with no pedestrian infrastructure? In addition, the ditch banks sharply off of the road making increased traffic a danger for everyone. What does the City/County propose for improving Two Mile Road to accommodate such a large development? Teton Street is proposed to be extended through the development connecting future projects to the west to this neighborhood. Teton Street is currently a three block street, terminating at Hawthorne that already experiences high traffic flow. The residents of the area made very good points about the impact of the by-pass to the area. My mother lives directly on Teton Street. With street parking and garbage services, two cars can barely pass each other simultaneously. Driveways are Iocated immediately off of Teton. J'm very concerned about the safety of pedestrians and drivers if this road is used as is proposed. What traffic calming mitigation plans is the city considering in concert with this proposed development? *Surface water runoff - Many area residents are concerned with the lack of proper storm water drains. This needs to be addressed. *General outreach - the developers have done the minimum required by law yet this project is intense in size, scale and density. Everybody I heard from is shocked this is being considered. Again, I see from your zoning map that long range plans call for high density. But let's get real, you know most citizens don't realize that. This has become a frightening prospect to the residents that have called this area home. Shouldn't there be greater care given to a neighborhood when such a dramatic proposal is made? I strongly encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to delay a decision so the development can answer the neighbors and public's concerns. You would do an injustice to the need to start creating more density to address housing shortage if done in this manner. Thank you for your consideration and your work - Andrea Davis December 10, 2017 RECEIVED DEC I i 2017 To: Kalispell Planning Department KALISPELLPLANNING DEPARTMENT Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Re: The Crossing at Spring Creek (KA-17-06 & KCU-17-10) am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of The Crossing at Spring Creek. I'm especially concerned about the extension of Teton Street as the primary corridor for 240 of the planned units. Currently, Teton Street serves a total of 21 townhouses. If this proposal goes through, it will be a ten -fold increase of the present traffic load on Teton. Teton Street as it now exists is about a block and a half long. It quickly intersects Hawthorne Avenue, an already busy neighborhood. I would like to call attention to the high density of residences already using Hawthorne Avenue. The south end of Hawthorne, between 2 Mile and Liberty Street is a mixture of homes, townhouses, duplexes and apartments. Indeed, Hawthorne is the only option for 148 residences in about a 3 tenths of a mile section. Glacier Street, Yellowstone Street, Teton Street and Hawthorne West all dead end at Hawthorne. In addition there are 11 private driveways and 9 apartment complex driveways in this very short section. Hawthorne Avenue is already at capacity with the existing residences and through traffic as a connector between 2 Mile and 3 Mile Drive. I want to believe that I live in a community that will recognize this. Therefore, please do not allow the proposed extension of Teton Street to proceed. Sincerely, oy�2 �ou� Ronda Howell 51 Hawthorne PO Box 771 • 35 4th Street West Kalispell, Montana 59903 www.flatheadcitizens.org December 12, 2017 Mr. Chad Graham Kalispell City Council Member President, Kalispell Planning Board 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Request for Initial Zoning of RA-2 Upon Annexation Staff Report #KA-17-06 Request for Conditional Use Permit Staff Report #KCU-17-10 t: 406.756.8993 0 f: 406.756.8991 citizens@,flatheadcitizens.org Dear City Council Member Graham and Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, Citizens for a Better Flathead appreciates this opportunity to comment on the property annexation and conditional use permit application before you tonight. Our organization was founded in 1992 and we represent some 1500 supporters throughout the county. Our mission is to foster citizen participation and champion sustainable solutions needed to keep the Flathead ecologically and economically healthy. We believe that thoughtfully planned growth can and should occur without diminishing the very special characteristics of the Flathead Valley, and in this case specifically Kalispell, that play such an important role in attracting and retaining investments that grow the Flathead's economy. We respectfully ask that you extend the public hearing period for the matters in front of you: File #KA-17-06 — A request to annex a 15-acre parcel into the city and zone the land RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) upon annexation. File #KA-KCU-17-10 — A request for a conditional use permit for a 324-unit multi -family apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zoning Districts. Legal notice was posted in the Daily Inter Lake issue of November 26, 2017. A notice was mailed approximately the same time to property owners within 150 feet of one of the proposed projects noted above and will be most directly affected by its development. However, the notices stated that the documents pertaining to the agenda items were on file for public inspection at the Kalispell Planning Office, and available on the city's website. This wasn't the case. The application (and map) weren't available until Tuesday, November 291h But the staff report and cost of services analysis wasn't made available until the afternoon of Thursday, December 7th. This isn't enough time for the public to digest the information and present their comments adequately for a project of such size and impact to the surrounding properties and community. We ask that the public hearing in these matters be extended to your next meeting of January 9, 2018. We will enter the into the public record our following comments now, but would like the opportunity to add additional comments to the record in the future if we find necessary. The proposed property appears compliant with the city's annexation evaluation. However, to zone this property as RA-2 is non -compliant with the city's zoning code. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance states that the intention of the RA-2 district is "to provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." [Our emphasis added.] Surrounding the property to the north, east, south, and proposed directly to the west, are high residential density areas — R-4 and RA-1. As an RA-2 district, the property would be compatible with the area's high residential density. But it's not adjacent to any commercial zones (current or considered in the Kalispell Growth Policy) to act as a buffer to the adjacent residential areas. Nor is the property located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands, or the Central Business District. We find an RA-2 designation too dense and to zone this property as RA-2 is inappropriate and non -compliant with the city's zoning ordinance. Citizens also has issue with the conditional use permit application, particularly the proposed project's impact on the neighborhood and property values. Again and overall, to premise the application on an RA-2 zone designation is inconsistent with the city's zoning ordinance. A key concern is traffic. First, the Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) included with the packet indicates that the apartment complex will generate 2,155 average daily trips (ADT) with 166 trips occurring in the peak morning hour and 201 trips in the peak evening hour. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between Table 1 of the TGDL and its Appendix Figure 3 — Project Trip Distribution. Table 1 refers to 166/201 morning/evening peak trips, but Figure 3 refers to 174/211 morning/evening peak trips. We don't know if that means the 2,155 ADT needs to be adjusted upward and its further impacts on the neighborhood. Second, the calculated 970 daily trips through the Teton/Hawthorn corridor seems an excessive increase in traffic, as does the additional 970 daily trips estimated through the east corridor of Two Mile Drive. A TIS will offer a better analysis of traffic impacts and mitigation. But anecdotally, we can't see how the current state of Two Mile Drive east of the development will handle such traffic flows. It's a two-lane roadway with no shoulder surrounded by drainage ditches on each side. Third, the concept of the project is car -centric and does nothing to align with city strategies to improve and increase non -motorized mobility throughout the city. On the walk to the bus stop on Hawthorn and Liberty there are few to no sidewalks. On the walk to the bus stop on Two Mile and Financial there are no sidewalks or road shoulders and would require either walking along the roadway or in the drainage ditches. Safety is a major concern once off the development's required sidewalks for pedestrian and bicyclist and there appear no current plans to address that. The additional requirements for specific conditional uses in the city's zoning ordinance states that "no additional height shall be allowed within 150 feet of any R or RA zone. Any right-of- way adjacent to the subject property shall be excluded from the measurement." All properties — R-4 and RA-1— surrounding the proposed development allow a maximum height of 35 feet if granted through a CUP and are not similar to the proposed development. (The 40 feet height allowance for RA-1 zones as reported in the staff report appears incorrect.) With a requested height of 40 feet for each of the buildings to the north and east of the property, it appears setbacks of 110 feet fall within the ordinance's range and would not be allowed. It also concerns us that the application makes no mention of the floodplain at the southern third of the property. You don't eliminate floodplains. You may remove your property from the floodplain through mitigation, but the water has to go somewhere. We'd suspect to the outlying neighborhood. But without further analysis, this a too important point to not have addressed further through this process. We're unclear as to the impact developing a property in the floodplain, with a density greater than the surrounding area would have on neighboring property values. And without further analysis presented, we question the basis of the staff report's statement that aspects of the development would "assist in greatly improving property values" or "create either a neutral or beneficial impact in the neighborhood." Citizens for a Better Flathead believes that it's appropriate for the said property to be annexed. But to do so as an RA-2 zone is non -compliant with the city's zoning ordinance. In turn, the conditional use permit for this RA-2 zoned proposal becomes irrelevant. Therefore, we find Staff Report #KA-17-06 and its findings of fact based on non-compliance with the city's zoning ordinance. We ask the City of Kalispell Planning Board and Zoning Commission to not accept the report's findings and not recommend to City Council the annexation and initial zoning of this property upon annexation to be RA-2. Likewise, we find Staff Report #KCU-17-10 and its findings of fact based with the city's zoning ordinance. We ask the City of Kalispell Planning Bc Commission to not accept the report's findings and not recommend to City Council the approval of this conditional use permit. Thank you... A. Richard Turbiak Executive Director Kalispell City Council Chambers Attention: Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Kalispell City Hall 2O1First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 NEW My name is Michelle Christensen, and my address is 6 Yellowstone Street, Kalispell. I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the two proposals indicated above. high water table in this area. Specifically, our basement flooded last year despite the use of a sump pump that ran nearly every 7 minutes for weeks. This has happened on more than one occasion and I am aware that this has occurred in the homes of many of my neighbors as well. I am concerned that building an apartment complex in this flood zone while we've not yet addressed problems with the high water table and its impact on existing homes simply "kicks the can down the road." I'm not sure whether the city's use of the parking lot at the Gateway Mail as a snow dump contributes to the problem we had last year but I can only imagine that not all of that snow melted in to the city sewer system. Surely a risk analysis could be conducted and strategies implemented to address these issues. If, however, these issues cannot be resolved, I would encourage the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission to consider a denial of these requests. |naddition, two mile drive isunsafe for pedestrian traffic. The addition ofa324unit apartment building will result inincreased pedestrian traffic nnanalready too narrow road. | imagine that children will walk toschool, and parents will walk to and from work, the post office, and grocery stores from the proposed apartment complex. I walk from my home to my office on Financial Drive nearly every week day, and I am always concerned about unsafe pedestrian/vehicle conditions. There are no sidewalks on two mile drive. The ditches are generally steep and there is simply no room for a vehicle in each direction as well as a pedestrian. A coworker of mine was hit by a truck (though not injured, he did find himself in the ditch with the driver not having realized he'd hit anyone) a few years ago. Both my coworker and I are vigilant about safety when walking on two mile drive. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure children will be as cautious and I truly worry about their safety. Finally, I am concerned about the increased traffic on both Two Mile Drive as well as Hawthorne Avenue. Parking has been an ongoing issue and sidewalks are not consistently available which forces the many area residents who walk to and from work, the grocery store, etc. to walk in the road. Winter conditions make this particularly dangerous as snow piles narrow the road considerably. |arnaproponent ofaffordable housing for our community. However, | believe vveneed tocome upwith workable, reasonable, feasible solutions. Let usnot ignore the very real issues that present themselves when considering these requests. I thank you in advance for your consideration of the concerns I've presented. Kari Hernandez From: James R. Conner <jrc.kalispell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:26 PM To: Kari Hernandez Subject: Crossings at Spring Creek project To: Kalispell planning board and planners Subject: Crossings at Spring Creek (1) I've lived on Konley Drive since 1977. Two Mile Drive is my direct route to Kalispell. Indeed, all of my routes to Kalispell must begin on Two Mile Drive, as no street connects Konley Drive to Three Mile Drive. Sometimes, I walk to town along Two Mile Drive. (2) I'm familiar with the field for the proposed project. Indeed, I've walked across it several times. (3) Two Mile Drive will be the primary access for Crossings at Spring Creek. According to the project documents online and news reports, CSC could increase traffic on 2-Mile by = 2,000 trips a day. But 2-Mile is, essentially, still a country road, narrow with no shoulders in most locations. Approval of CSC should, in myjudgment, be contingent on widening 2- Mile, and installing turning lanes and traffic lights for the approach to CSC. Moreover, if a sidewalk is not extended from CSC's entrance to Meridian, the increase in traffic will make walking 2-Mile to Meridian extremely dangerous. The absence of a bicycle lane will make riding 2-Mile more dangerous than it already is. (4) The traffic analysis should consider CSC's impact on 2-Mike traffic during the county fair week in August. This event should not be dismissed as an outlier. My impression reading the submittals is that CSC's backers are doing their best to minimize the impact of traffic. Frankly, I do not fully trust their analysis. (5) There are open fields west and northwest of the CSC project. It's reasonable to assume they will be converted to residential development, possibly to high density development, in the next decade. Therefore, CSC's impacts on traffic and services should not be reviewed in isolation. A cumulative effects analysis is warranted. (6) Spring Creek Drive, Hawthorne, and Two and Three Mile Drives form a rectangle partly within Kalispell's city limits that is rapidly filling with residential development. There are no north -south through streets within this rectangle. In the rectangle's southern half, 2-Mile is the only evacuation route. In the northern half, Three Mile is the evacuation route. Some interconnectivity would provide greater flexibility for evacuations, and would improve safety. Even if this concern is dismissed as not directly germane to the CSC proposal, it is something that elected officials, and planning boards and their staffs, should be mindful of as they consider additional development in the rectangle. James Conner 78 Konley DR Kalispell, MT 59901 No telephone RECEIVED JAN0Z2013 Date: 12/26/2017 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Kalispell Planning Department From: Marilyn Driscoll 22 Glacier Street Kalispell, MT 59901 406-752-7841 Regarding: File 4KA-17-06 and File #KCU-17-10 Crossings At Spring Creek I attended the planning meeting on 12/12/17. 1 would like to thank the board for listening to the concerns of the citizens of Kalispell. I know it would have been much faster and much easier to give this project a quick stamp of approval and move on, but it would have been a huge disservice to the people you represent. We are looking to you for protection from improper development that could hurt us. Thank you for caring enough to slow things down in order to obtain some much needed information on this massive proposed project. The developer, Mr. Whipple, was woefully unprepared for this important meeting. He even had the facts of his own project incorrect. He stated that Phase 1 was the South part of the field that is bordering Two Mile Drive, and that it would be built first, and so he stated that there would be no need to punch a road into Teton at the first phase. I thought it very odd that a developer would build a clubhouse and pool first before apartments, on the portion of the land that is in flood plain. Phase 1 is actually on the North end of the field, (buildings #1 thru #5). 1 also noticed on the staff report that both the Teton and Two Mile Drive access should be installed on the first phase of this project. Mr. Whipple told us that he is a traffic and drainage specialist, and yet he has no idea how he is going to deal with the storm water drainage issue, now that we know he cannot use his original plan to leave a 20 foot strip of land around the perimeter. It does not meet our City's requirements. It sounds like that would actually require 40 feet. He tells us that they are above the requirements for parking, and yet every problem that is coming up, from drainage, to water and sewer, would take away huge amounts of his speculated parking areas. I feel quite certain, that the design of the garages that are proposed to line the entire perimeter of this field, would be built with flat style roofs that would slant towards the property line, thereby increasing the run off of rain and snow melt towards the neighboring properties. Apparently they can build these garages as close as five feet to the shared property lines. Of course there was not one single picture to show us the design of the garages. This will not be an attractive development from the exterior. I was not impressed with his comment that "We'll fix what we break, and blah, blah, blah". He actually said that in the meeting. Watch the web video if you missed that. I also did not care for his remark that we could "fly around and look at his other projects", because he did not bring pictures or updated plans, or have answers to our concerns. It is not our job to fly around and look at his projects. We are already tax paying citizens of Kalispell. His firm is asking permission to join us. I would say the burden should be on his firm to respectfully present a professional presentation. I did not get the feeling that he thought he needed to do that. It was offensive to the intelligent people who took the time to attend this very important meeting. This is a classic example of getting the cart before the horse. The builder is asking for a blanket approval of everything they want, without providing adequate information to the planning board or the citizens of Kalispell, that would allow us to make an educated decision. Make no mistake, this is a huge project for our area, that will have far reaching consequences for our city. That field has been sitting there empty for decades. It is not going to hurt anything for it to sit there for a while longer before making irreversible annexation and zoning changes. We absolutely do not currently have the infrastructure to support a complex of that size in that field. The roads, sidewalks, storm water, potable water, and sanitary sewer systems are not currently adequate. I am not a big fan of approving this first and then desperately trying to make the project work with what is available. I had several questions at the board meeting. I am wondering how I get answers to those questions? I am including a copy of my list of concerns that I presented at your meeting. There were no citizens in attendance at the meeting that were in favor of this project as it was vaguely presented. In my mind, there is also no question that this field should absolutely not be zoned RA-2. If annexed in to the city, it should be zoned the same as all of the surrounding properties, as RA-1. I did not appreciate the attempt to downplay the density difference between these two zones. It would reduce the density of this proposed project by 1/3. That is significant. The reduction in the height allowance would be significant also. To compare the streets in this neighborhood to P Avenue East, is like comparing apples to oranges. V Avenue East goes the entire length of Kalispell, each block is a standard city block which is about 6 houses long, there are alleys to access the back of each house and garage, and therefor very few houses would have driveways that back into the street, there are sidewalks and boulevards on both sides of this street, and it has established intersections with all of the intersecting streets. In stark comparison, the streets in our neighborhood, have no alleys, no sidewalks, no way to access the back of our properties, everyone has to back out of a driveway into the street. They are not through streets. Glacier, Yellowstone, and Teton, are all dead end streets, one block long, that only intersect at Hawthorne at "T" stop signs. Glacier Street to Hawthorne and Two Mile is one house long, not six. Yellowstone to Glacier along Hawthorne is two houses long, not six. Two Mile Drive is already a very dangerous road, with no shoulders, no sidewalks, and steep ditches on both sides. It cannot safely handle the traffic and pedestrians that already live in this area. I would ask each board member to please take a drive down Two Mile Drive, and then imagine adding another 2,155 cars per day. Imagine several years of large construction vehicles traveling this road. Just because there are already apartment complexes in this area, does not mean it can support an unlimited concentration of people and vehicles. This will become an undue concentration of people. I would not think that is what Kalispell is hoping for with additional housing. The existing citizens of this neighborhood are not being properly served by the City. Even though we have faithfully paid our property taxes for decades, we are told that there is never enough money for sidewalks, street lights, storm sewers, properly sized water lines, etc. Imagine how it makes us feel to think that things are about to get much worse, by adding a cow pasture that has never paid one dollar in city property taxes. The flooding in that field is not from Spring Creek. It is from snowmelt. If the builder brings in fill dirt to increase the elevation of the field, it may take them out of the requirement to purchase flood insurance, but it will not change the fact that in the springtime, that entire field looks like a lake. The field drains towards the east, (my neighborhood), and floods the alley, then my yard, then peoples basements. If they raise the height of their property, and line the perimeter with hundreds of garages that slant towards my neighborhood, I can only imagine the disaster that will create for those of us who are not millionaires. I do not believe that if the City of Kalispell does not accept this vague plan, or grant the change in zoning that the builder has presented, that they will pack up their plans and go home. I do not think we should be afraid that nothing better will come along than this current proposal. The owners of this property need to be annexed into the city to proceed with any building plans, or they would be relegated to one house per acre. We have rules in place for the protection of our town, and also to allow us to invite other people to join us in a polite, respectful, and fair manner. The hope is that the builder will provide additional housing for our city, and that the venture will be profitable for them, without harming the existing neighborhood. Let us tape our time and do our homework, so we will have no regrets in the future. Thank you. My name is Marilyn Driscoll. RECEIVED My address is 22 Glacier Street in Kalispell JAN 0 7 2018 1 have the following concerns: KALISPELL PLANN ING DEPARTMENT I. The density and height of this complex would dominate the entire neighborhood, rather than complimenting, or at least blending, with the existing neighborhood. I am curious as to why an RA-2 zoning would be considered for this new parcel, rather than an RA-1, which would match the surrounding zoning? Part of the intent of R-1 zoning, is to permit only low - density development in areas adjacent to floodplains, this property is actually IN FEMA flood plain. Part of the intent of allowing RA-2 zoning, would typically be to serve as a buffer zone between commercial and residential areas. There is no commercial development surrounding this parcel. It is all residential. The entire neighborhood would have their views completely blocked by a 40 foot high wall of apartments. 2. There are no storm sewers in this area for this parcel to hook in to. I spoke to Joe Schrader, the Utility Supervisor for the City of Kalispell, and he stated that the ground water table in this area is very high, that it is a swampy area, very flat, and has terrible drainage. Our neighborhood its already experiencing ground water problems which flood some of our yards, some of the roads, and some basements and crawl spaces. The utility department has been trying to help us, but there is nowhere to take the water. If this project elects to bring in fill material to bring their property above the flood elevation, what would happen to all of the surrounding properties, which would now be lower in elevation than the natural lay of the land? 3. This new complex would hook in to City water and sanitary sewer. I am told that the existing water lines nearest the property boundary to the east, are low pressure and could not handle this additional use. The only water line in this area that has adequate pressure to serve a complex of this size, would be to the north. The existing sanitary sewer main on the eastern boundary is only 3 feet deep, which would make connecting to this main difficult. The other sanitary sewer option, would be to connect to the sewer main to the north, but this may require upgrades to the existing lift stations. I do not know if any of the excavating for these projects would go across private property, or not, but these would be huge projects. 4. The additional traffic that would be created by having over two thousand vehicle trips per day generated by this complex would have a significant impact on our area. Two Mile Drive is a very narrow road, with no shoulders or sidewalks, and steep ditches on both sides. Teton Street is currently a dead end street. Hawthorne Avenue is a very busy road, with no sidewalks, that is now being used as a cut across road between Two Mile Drive and Three Mile Drive, so cars can access the bypass. There is zero "walkability" in this area now, so with the addition of this huge complex, the people who live there would be "landlocked", even if new sidewalks are installed in front of the complex only. 5. What is the maximum number of years, the builder will be allowed to complete this project? I am concerned about how long our neighborhood will be subject to dirt, noise, construction, etc. before there is actually landscaping, fencing, and some sense of peace restored to our neighborhood? What will happen to the alley at the end of Glacier Street and Yellowstone Street? That is our only connection to Two Mile Drive on the west side of our properties. 6. 1 respect the fact that people need housing. I also respect a property owner's right to request annexation into the City Limits. What I am requesting, is that very careful thought and planning be given to this potential apartment complex, to protect the existing citizens of Kalispell . 7. Thank you for your time. /-- 3cu-26/g Wes - Vol rn � C;,-? - a-,Y� All CA-4 IIZ ,cam wan LN3XWd30 DNlNWdTB s aBA1303a Kari Hernandez From: Kelly Mower <kellymmower@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 5:24 PM To: Jarod Nygren Cc: Tom Jentz; Tom Tabler; Keith Haskins; Kalispell Planning Board Subject: Re: The Crossings: Fill Permit Application Good Afternoon, My name is Kelly Mower and I have lived on 19 Iris Ct, for the last 5 years, 1 wanted to touch base with you all regarding the proposed, 324-unit apartment complex off Teton Street. There are some basic and fundamental accessibility and safety issues that have not been addressed. The complete lack of real information is alarming and dis-hearting as the proposed complex will have such a big impact on all of the people who reside in and around it. First off, I would encourage you all to take some time and drive down 2 mile, Teton and Hawthorn. If you do, it will become clear as to what the accessibility and safety issues are as well as their direct, negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the people that reside in them. Every day I turn right off Teton onto to Hawthorn, then on to 2miie on my way to work. I make multiple trips going both north and south down Hawthorn during the day. When I am done with work, I go to West Valley to pick up my dog — my return route is 3 mile --<> Hawthorn --<> Teton St, --<> Iris ct. I can tell you this — most of the time, turning left or right onto Hawthorn from Teton is a blind turn, due to the vehicles parked on the side of the street. It is one of those turns where you hope that no one is coming. Secondly, once you do get onto Hawthorn, 95% of the time it is one lane traffic due to parked cars and the already limited parking. Not to mention the pedestrians, bikes, animals, busses, people waiting for bus/getting dropped off etc. one car must maneuver to the side of the road and wait for the oncoming car to pass — there is simply not enough room. When I head back into town from West Valley, and head South down Hawthorn from 3 mile around 6-8pm the driving situation is even worse. One car can pass at a time, it is dark, there are people and animals in the road due to very restricted space in general. The winter months are worse as the snow is often plowed into the middle of the road, since there is quite literally nowhere else for it to go. Even without parked cars/people etc. it is one lane traffic. What is going to happen when the traffic increases exponentially? What will that do to your 3 seconds? Even more, the residents of Teton St. are elderly single people, which was well represented by their children that spoke on their behalves at the last meeting. What is going to happen when they back onto Teton, into oncoming traffic? Then make a blind turn onto a one car passing street situation? What is going to happen when they, along with so many others arrive at the stop sign on Teton and pull out at that blind and even more congested corner? What will happen on Hawthorn with the exponential increase in traffic, yet no improvements to the road? How will the additional traffic deal with the one lane, one car pass at a time situation? What will that do to your 3 seconds? Then there is 2 Mile Dr. — have you driven down it? I drive 2 mile every day, multiple times/day, both directions. There are often cars off the road and in the ditch often — especially in the winter. When that happens, the traffic must be controlled as there is only room for one lane of traffic to pass at a time. With no shoulder and a steep ditch, there have been times when traffic comes to a complete halt as there is just no room until the situation at hand Is dealt with. There should not be any extra stress put on that road until there are some BIG, fundamental improvements. Safety is a big issue and as it stands 2 mile poses a serious hazard to the public. Secondly, what is going to happen to the 600* people that reside in the complex when they walk outside of the developed area made safe by the developer into the "Un-Safe Zone"? At that point, does it not matter, since the development they started in was safe? Logistics wise, what will their route look like in order to reach the bus stop/school/work/home safely? Or does that safety concern go to the wayside as well once they reach Teton/Hawthorn/2 Mile? What about the pedestrians walking and biking on 2 Mile? They literally have to walk in the road - that means when there is oncoming traffic, one car has to wait behind the person for the other car to pass, in order to continue with their route. What about all the kids that walk/bike up and down Hawthorn to and from school? What about their safety? Hawthorn and 2 Mile can't safely support their current work load as it stands right now. How do you plan to deal with the negative impact and repercussions of this proposed project if it were to pass? We all know that there is a housing is an issue in the Valley — it is tough, I have been there. The residents of Teton and Iris ct, are not blind to the fact that Teton will not be a dead-end street forever. However, there is something that can be done in regards to what kind of development goes behind it. Quite simply, the proposed area can't support this type of development without seriously compromising the lives and safety of the people that live around there/drive there/ walk there/bike there/are there/ all of it. Why not continue with the same type of housing found on Teton and Iris Ct. Something more manageable, that the current infrastructure can support SAFELY, Find an area that does not have all of the accessibility issues like this area does, build this mammoth of a complex where the infrastructure can actually support it, in a location that makes sense. As far as the building standards/zoning etc, that were imposed at the time that this neighborhood was originally developed and the fact that it has no impact on what can and can't happen in the future, is ridiculous. It has been made clear that we can tax ourselves, if we feel strongly about the issues and would like to remediate them... but can we? There is no way to fix Hawthorn, it was simply not made to support what this project is asking of it. This area in general, was not built to support this type of structure and the people that live in the area are the ones that realize this in a big way. Why would you add more stress to an already hazardous situation? Safety and accessibility is important and should play a big role in your decision; with the best interest of the public in mind. Two wrongs don't make a right I found it completely ridiculous that at the last meeting, one of the gentlemen with the city did not know the name of one of the connecting/adjacent streets to the proposed complex. He laughed and said it had been 20 years, or something to that affect. Well, I can tell you that no one in the audience thought that it was funny. This is a huge project — every detail should be thoroughly researched, explored and researched some more. The ins and the outs of each element of the project, every alternative, every possibility, including the potential cause/effect of each action and its impact on the public, their safety and quality of life should be addressed .At that point, It was made very clear, just how little thought and consideration had actually been put into this project, (well that and the traffic study — since traffic is a HUGE issue, that no one decided to address at that time). Anyone having anything to do with this project should at the very least, know all of the surrounding streets, their names and the potential role that they could play in the development of this area and the city of Kalispell in its' entirety. Ali I can ask is that you take some time to analyze this proposed project with the best interest of the community in mind, Do the research, require the traffic studies, drive up and down the streets so that you know how it all works. Develop a plan where the safety and quality of life of the public and their properties are not compromised. Thank you, Kelly Mower On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Jarod Nygren <jnygrenOka] ispell.com> wrote: Patrick, 2 14 Third Street East, Suite 240 Kalispell, Montana 59901 www.flatheadcitizens.org February 28, 2018 Mayor Mark Johnson City of Kalispell 201 11t Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Request for Initial Zoning of RA-2 Upon Annexation Staff Report #KA-17-06 Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the Kalispell City Council, 406.756.8993 citizens@flatheadcitizens.org Citizens for a Better Flathead appreciates this opportunity to comment on the property annexation regarding the proposed Crossings at Spring Creek development that comes before you at your meeting of Monday, March 5, 2018. We believe to annex this property and zone it at RA-2 does not comply with the city's zoning code. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance states that the intention of the RA-2 district is "to provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." [Our emphasis added.] Surrounding the property to the north, east, south, and proposed directly to the west, are high residential density areas — R-4 and RA-1. As an RA-2 district, the property would be compatible with the area's high residential density. But it's not adjacent to any commercial zones (current or considered in the Kalispell Growth Policy) to act as a buffer to the adjacent residential areas. Nor is the property located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands, or the Central Business District. We appreciate the city's desire to meet the growing housing needs of the Kalispell community. We also understand that increased housing stock and options do positively affect housing affordability. But an RA-2 designation is too dense for this residential area and non -compliant with the city's zoning ordinance. Thank you... A. Richard Turbiak Executive Director PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: MONTANA Kalispell City Planning Board Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner Planning Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/plannin,a Crossings at Spring Creek — KA-17-06 and KCU-17-10 February 13, 2018 BACKGROUND: At the Planning Board meeting on December 12, 2017, the Board held a public hearing on the Crossings at Spring Creek application. The application includes a request to annex a 15- acre parcel into the city with an initial zoning designation of RA-2 and a request for conditional use permit for a 324-unit apartment complex. During the public hearing there were 18 members of the public that spoke out in opposition to the project. Most of their concerns stemmed around traffic, storm water/flooding, visual impacts and potential for increased crime. Board discussion concluded that due to the size of the project and its potential impacts they needed more information before proceeding. The Board directed staff to work with the applicant on additional traffic information, storm water information, pedestrian access and building perspectives. Accordingly, the Board continued the application until the January 9, 2018 meeting. Subsequently, the Board once again continued the application at the January 9th meeting to the February 13, 2018 in order for the applicant to prepare the materials. Since the last meeting staff has worked with the applicant and obtained the following information: Traffic — Staff has received a Traffic Memorandum from the applicant. The memorandum outlines the potential impacts related to the development of the 324-unit multi -family project. The memorandum summarizes that the project will have minimal impact; however, there is a reduction in level of service at the intersections of Hawthorne and Two Mile Drive and Hawthorne and Three Mile Drive. Hawthorne and Three Mile Drive will be the most affected with an increase in average delay of 3 +/- seconds. The applicant also prepared a memorandum indicating that new turn lanes at these intersections would have little impact and would not likely be necessary mitigation. Until a full traffic study is done in the spring, where up-to-date traffic counts and existing circulation data can be obtained, it is difficult to determine what mitigation may be necessary to maintain current levels of service. • Storm Water — Staff has received a Storm Water Memorandum from the applicant. The memorandum outlines how the storm water runoff from the new impervious areas created by the project will be managed. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a site plan showing where the storm water detention ponds will be located. The storm water detention ponds are all internal to the site and will not be adjacent the property boundaries, as was originally specified. Public Works has indicated that the proposed layout will require geotechnical review and recommendations due to the detentions ponds proximity to the buildings. The memo demonstrates how their storm water design is anticipated to contain all the storm water runoff onsite and discharge into the native soil. The storm water runoff is not anticipated to leave the site as it currently does; therefore, reducing the downstream impacts. Public Works has reviewed the memo and determined that the methodology used for the memo is appropriate and that the calculations shown appear to be accurate given the situation. A full storm water report is still required prior to building permit issuance. • Pedestrian Access — The developer is installing sidewalks throughout their development providing for pedestrian access. Additionally, the developer is required to upgrade Two Mile Drive to city standard, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees and landscape boulevard their entire property frontage. Teton Street will also be extended to the western property boundary and be constructed to city standards, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees and landscape boulevard. Unfortunately, other than Teton Street, the neighboring community was constructed without sidewalks. It is not uncommon in the city to have large areas of development without sidewalks because they were not always a requirement. The fact that previous developments were not required to install sidewalks should not preclude future developments from proceeding, as they will be required to meet all of the city requirements at time of construction. The city does not typically require offsite improvements such as sidewalks unless there is a very compelling reason to install them. Adjacent city park, school, etc. would be examples for requiring offsite improvements. If the neighboring community feels that not having sidewalks is a large issue, then they can choose to tax themselves through the form of a Special Improvement District and have sidewalks constructed through their community. Special Improvement Districts are a useful financial tool when providing services to currently underserved areas because they fund the construction equitably throughout the district. • Building Perspectives — The applicant has submitted building perspectives. The perspectives are designed to be transparent so that you can get an accurate visual of how the neighboring property views would be impacted by the 3-story buildings. The applicant focused on buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are the closest to the single-family homes. The perspectives give an accurate representation how buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be viewed from Teton Street, Yellowstone Street and Glacier Street to the east. It is important to note that the City of Kalispell does not regulate views; however, it is important that a project does not have an undue impact on neighboring properties and neighborhood compatibility is addressed. In this case, the height, bulk and location of the buildings appears to be negligible due to the proposed setbacks, as shown in the submitted perspectives and site plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell Planning Board review the attached documents and continue discussion on the Crossings at Spring Creek annexation and conditional use permit request. Attachments: All applicable attachments can be found on the Planning Department website under "Agenda & Staff Reports." Please contact me at (406)758-7942 if you have any questions. WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ph 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 MEMORANDUM * 0 t TO: City of Kalispell Planning Commission J FROM: Todd R. Whipple, P.E. Ben Goodmansen E.I.T. _._._. DATE: January 16 2018 .................. �................ ............................ t PROJECT 17-1875 NEE' Crossings at Spring Creek ` NO: -- .......... .. ......... REGARDING: Requested Stormwater Information Development Concept Stonnwater design This Stormwater Memorandum has been prepared to document the concept storm for the proposed Crossings at Spring Creek Development. As the proposed development has not begun the design stage, what is known is the preliminary site plan information, and the design requirements of the City of Kalispell. Based upon this information this concept stormwater report has been written accordingly and will demonstrate the operation of stormwater on site. For this report the City of Kalispell, Standards for Design and Construction was used as well as the MDT hydraulic design manual. Project Site The project proposes to develop approximately 14.91 ac +1- into a 324-unit multifamily residential development within 14 buildings. The development includes a clubhouse and recreation facilities. The development is separated into 3 sections, each section being separated by a roadway or drive aisle with parking. For this concept analysis the development area is assumed to be 653,400 sf or 15 ac +1-. The project site currently sheet flows to the western boundary and continues onto the adjacent property. G eot echni cal Information There has been no Geotechnical survey of the site, with no infiltration testing nor a design infiltration provided. The NRCS web site calls out three soil types: Kalispell Loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Kalispell silt Loam heavy subsoil, 0 to 3 percent slopes Kalispell — Tuffit silt loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Each of these soils are described as a hydrologic soil group B. Per the City of Kalispell, Standards for Design and Construction, within Table 14 on pg. 79. The "fine sand, loamy sand" has a maximum design infiltration rate of 2.4 in/hr. per sf or 5.56 x 10-5 cfslsf. For this Concept storm drainage analysis this design infiltration will be used, until an actual rate is established. January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 2 For full design a geotechnical analysis of the pond locations on the site will be completed and a site -specific design infiltration rate will be calculated as well as a mounding analysis of the project ponds. Precipitation Precipitation rates are provided Per the MDT storm manual at the Kalispell Airport and is listed in Tables B-3 and B-5 for the years 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, & 100. Concept Storm Design For this concept design, the project site (15 ac) is considered a single basin, with the full buildout of the development that includes 298,248 sf of paved surfaces, and 9 1, 000 sf of building surface. Stormwater Treatment From this basin information a treatment pond has been sized to treat the first 0.5 inches of rainfall (Stormwater design Sec 4.6.2C) by means of collection and filtering the stormwater through a biofiltration material before the stormwater infiltrates into the groundwater system. Hence treatment standards would be met. Based upon the 298,248 sf of paved surfaces the first 0.5 inch of rainfall calculates to a volume of 12,427 cf. Assuming that a pond outflow structure is placed at 1.7 feet above the pond bottom, and a discharge of 1.4 cfs can be achieved via pond bottom infiltration, the pond will need to have a bottom area of 24,854 sf. Stormwater Conveyance For the concept stormwater analysis, it is assumed that all stormwater has been conveyed to the singular concept pond. Pond Infiltration and ❑peration Considering the pond bottom area (24,854 sf) and the infiltration rate of2.4 incheslhr per sf. The concept pond design is anticipated to infiltrate stormwater at a rate of 1.4 cfs. For the operation of the pond the bowstring method was used and evaluated for the 10-year and 100-year storm events per the precipitation intensities of Table B-3. As shown in the attached bowstring calculations the concept pond is anticipated to hold the runoff of both the 10- and I00-year storm events, as the runoff infiltrates into the native soil. Conclusion As demonstrated with this concept stormwater design the stormwater runoff for the proposed development is anticipated to be able to be contained within the project, and discharged into the native soil. The stormwater runoff is not anticipated to leave the site as it currently does. Therefore, the proposed development is anticipated to reduce downstream impacts from stormwater runoff. TABLE B-5 DAILY PRECIPITATION (24 HR.) RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) Station f 2 J 5 10 25 50 100 Jordan 1.49 2.10 2.50 3.06 3.49 3.92 Judith Gap 1.47 2.11 2.54 3.13 3.58 4.03 Judith Gap 13 E 1.52 2.01 2.35 2.83 3.19 3.56 Kalispell 1.09 1.37 1.56 1.84 2.06 2.28 Kalispell Airport 1.08 1.44 1.69 2.03 2.30 2.56 Kila 1.14 1.40 1.58 1.84 2.05 2.25 Kirby 1 S I 1.76 2.57 3.10 3.83 4.39 4.96 Knobs 1.47 1.84 2.10 2.48 2.77 3.06 Kremlin 1.50 2.05 2.42 2.93 3.33 3.73 Lakeview 1.40 1.71 1.94 2.26 2.51 2.76 Lambert 1.80 2.52 3.01 3.68 4.19 4.71 Lame Deer 3 W 1.42 1.91 2.24 2.71 3.07 3.43 _ _ Laurel 1.53 2.05 2.40 2.90 3.28 3.66 Lennep 6 WSW 1.21 1.50 1.71 2.01 2.24 2.47 Lewistown 10 S 1.94 2.55 2.97 3.55 4.00 4.45 Lewistown Airport _ 1.60 2.13 2.50 3.01 3.40 3.79 Libby 1 NE Ranger Station 1.12 1.42 1.62 1.92 2.15 2.38 Libby 32 SSE 1.30 1.56 1.75 2.03 2.25 2.46 Libby Dam 1.07 1.32 1.49 1.75 1.95 2.15 Lima 1.00 1.42 1.70 2.09 2.39 2.68 Lincoln Ranger Station 1.27 1.62 1.86 2.21 2.48 2.74 Lindbergh Lake I 1.47 1.94 2.26 2.71 3.06 3.41 _ Lindsay 1.71 2.27 2.66 3.19 3.60 4.02 _ Livingston I 1.26 1.71 2.02 2.44 2.77 3.10 Livingston 12 S I 1.39 1.83 2.14 2.56 2.89 3.22 Livingston Airport I 1.25 1.62 1.88 2.24 2.52 2.80 Loto Hot Springs 2 NE i 1.27 1.54 1.74 2.02 2.24 2.46 Loma 1 WNW 1.48 1.90 2.19 2.60 2.92 3.24 Lonepine 1 WNW 0.89 1.08 1.22 1.41 1.57 1.72 Lonesome Lake 1.40 2.06 2.50 3.10 3.56 4.02 Loring 10 N i 1.69 2.18 2.51 2.99 3.36 3.73 Lustre 4 NNW 1.39 1.70 1.92 2.24 2.49 2.74 MacKenzie 1.57 1.97 2.25 2.65 2.96 3.27 Malta 1.52 2.13 2.53 3.09 3.53 3.96 7-B-18 TABLE B-3 Precipitation Intensity Values, in incheslhour Return Period and Duration Helena Kalispell 2 years 5 minutes 2.60 2.06 10 minutes 1.87 1.60 15 minutes 1.46 1.32 30 minutes 0.90 0.82 60 minutes 0.52 0.48 5 years 5 minutes 3.56 2.95 10 minutes 2.70 2.24 15 minutes 2.08 1.87 30 minutes 1.25 1.20 60 minutes 0.71 0.71 10 years 5 minutes 4.21 3.55 10 minutes 3.25 2.66 15 minutes 2.50 2.24 30 minutes 1.49 1.45 60 minutes 0.84 0.86 25 years 5 minutes 5.10 4.36 10 minutes 4.01 3.25 15 minutes 3.08 2.74 30 minutes 1.82 1.79 60 minutes 1.02 1.08 50 years 5 minutes 5.80 4.99 10 minutes 4.60 3.70 15 minutes 3.52 3.14 30 minutes 2.08 2.06 60 minutes 1.16 1.24 100 years 5 minutes 6.48 5.62 10 minutes 5.18 4.15 15 minutes 3.96 3.52 30 minutes 2.33 2.32 60 minutes 1.30 1.40 7-B-4 Missoula 2.09 1.49 1.19 0.70 0.41 2.90 2.14 1.78 1.03 0.60 3.46 2.57 2.17 1.25 0.72 4.21 3.17 2.70 1.56 0.88 4.80 3.63 3.11 1.79 1.01 5.39 4.09 3.52 2.02 1.14 Rational Method (continued) Precipitation Intensity Values, in Inches/Hour Return Period and Duration Helena Kalispell Missoula 2 years 5 minutes 2.60 2.06 2.09 10 minutes 1.87 1.60 1.49 15 minutes 1.46 1.32 1.19 30 minutes 0.90 0.82 0.70 60 minutes 0.52 0.48 0.41 5 years 5 minutes 3.56 2.95 2.90 10 minutes 2.70 2.24 2.14 15 minutes 2.08 1.87 1.78 30 minutes 1.25 1.20 1.03 60 minutes 0.71 0.71 0.60 10 years 5 minutes 4.21 3.55 3.46 10 minutes 3.25 2.66 2.57 15 minutes 2.50 2.24 2.17 30 minutes 1.49 1.45 1.25 60 minutes 0.84 0.86 0.72 25 years 5 minutes 5.10 4.36 4.21 10 minutes 4.01 3.25 3.17 15 minutes 3.08 2.74 2.70 30 minutes 1.82 1.79 1.56 60 minutes 1.02 1.08 0.88 50 years 5 minutes 5.80 4.99 4.80 10 minutes 4.60 3.70 3.63 15 minutes 3.52 3.14 3.11 30 minutes 2.08 2.06 1.79 60 minutes 1.16 1.24 1.01 Figure 7-3 Intensity Duration Table 7--28 WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS Flow Conversion from cfslsf to in/hr or in/hr to cfslsf Date: 1/3/2018 JOB # KALISPELL, MT - SPRING CREEK 17-1875 Engineer: TRW From cfslsf To in/hr From in/hr To cfslsf A 0.00E+00 0 0.00 2.4 0.2 5.56E-05 B 0.00E+00 0 0.00 8 0.666667 1.85E-04 C 0.00E+00 0 0.00 0.5 0.041667 1.16E-05 a N_ WD LD 3 A m C N 3m' M H Wl s � � Q § \ q © 00 x 2 3 = � / - _ 2 M 2 — — � § n ? r $ § 2 u - - ° § � 0 M � o ? 2 LIQ n o c 2 � � , & - _ 2 CD -- « - CD 9 g � t ? § ° ? �c3 — B c 00 r \ / k � d - � � . § % § ¥ --- r co Q N � � 1' UI�m v z @• co LO Co LO R N M N m— M M to M 1p N O cl7 C r LLId M Z C, C I, c7 O]f-t� 63 m N?,.6 Q m CV M O_�"rOM w 6 U m cY to 07 N ry tiY U7 LCJ Ln It M Cn N m f-- 0 N N ..0 ..0 .•K 7 0 Q w Q N r r NN NN NNNNNN N Nrr rr m L m 00 U 0 c3 I] c7J [13 ❑ M co LS7 U r p c Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CD Q QCp i= p 3 CO 0C) W O N� W mQN�(O W ON V ro W O NN []v r r N N N co cl R� LO C[7 LO W [n ti N n W r N Q a 0 c� nroo W Nln roln M2mmLR m CONCQi'-u] Z rnE p NN U')co Nr0 0Ln Lnm�G'ico L7 ='v pp o3 c� r-m o_vN MN cn191, 00LOMN N n Ln LnNcn E c ar U Q7 N M1 M 0 ti m mm mW m m 1� [p cf N d ti 7 [n •- -• N N N CV N N NNN N N N N N N N r� 'a 0 d Q co Q N m � Q A C m N r•• O N¢ N r CO ICJ CO O N M [p pQ O p7 C7 O] [6 W i� f� [D W w iR N 7, m O Cn � q N M a E} ¢7 n r m Q m ❑ U M r M Q r r O R l[] n Q � m N w Q m ay j Q Q7 C`7 M M N N r O) c6 ♦` i� 6 L6 Ln � � (`] N w E — � N a C a ❑ Z 7 0'N0 7 O fn C U)CA C RU)CO C7 CO CO CO WM mLQrn NQQN QCj CU' N f� 1fj cp N C] GO [�7 N r Q Q7 CON ti Lo � M m Q w Q 67 ❑ w C C�7 MN Nr r r rr rr Q QQ OQQ OQOQ �LO =~ �w AvO ❑ �� 6 Z Z r N_ LLJ w N FC n Cp 73 aoaoQoaQccaaoa< E m mo0ooa aO aM o(D w CVU6mCpN U) � -Q Z N m N v -91, ry LO Lry Co w > ] > 7 ❑J'2d Z F H cJ ]❑ Z Cn3c 5,?- Q Q Ow E 3 Qi °1 °� °d'L7 E r� L" �r c�j Lia c�»�¢nlnmc�tl inn o'ao cJ� m ❑ i=HO❑¢ EU¢� _ ❑ U N Ci M co V � L Ln ci L F N U Q CD 11 a aco v LL NCo 06 N c N a N a $ U i• Ln Y Ln ¢ {7 LLL LLcc ~ F es; Q 11 11 I O zLU .� N �UU 2 ry rn v co N -7 Q M V n G7 11 N ❑ m Q Qr, Lr1 4 Cq Q1 IL 0- Ln QQ Q Q QOCO¢ ¢ ¢ Q tf Q LU p W N C L -5 p rp a L¢n�Qo o cp Cl)cg' E N F 3 Q Q a ¢ Q M U Z' to U7 fn U] LL E 3 O C m L U Qo�Ln� v E Q tl7 r�•im vQ L6 m Ln 1 n a C > CC ce U G7 � Cm�7 N Q 'y IL fl 11 ry 31 11 11 N N U J c G7 rC N N c (n 'a ro pi x U C] Q 11 a C] 1n 11 LLLL L M M a) 11 [] a O 11 3 d `4 w II H p w w 31 W wLh w G 0W Q II m Q II m L6 IZr �Ea� L) O UuUn 0 v Y R Y (n FW- CD V LJ Z W Z C7 m 6 C) 0 U') W w Q m V M CVO') Tory n LO 0 r W N N 00 m r- z r` DO = LO � LCJ (- N M U7 n R U7 o r (O to o N > O V N LY Q W Q N CN�7 N m m co m V CM7 [~•] [�7 CN7 N '�"' •� •i"' O d m❑❑ V U U U (n ❑ ti M CO d r ❑ N MC+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o a o a o 0 QOmccC7N 0 wc,N V 0 m ON v_(nmo LOO CVN M1,31 [] (Ci C r N N" M M� � L4 LO U7 W W f• n P- CO r r V R W` C C$ r- N �Cc (O toN No r0Ito mm m 0cm Nw C)w ❑_ C ="0 j C m O > N M N U7 CO m M cc m CO 0 0 r- N N (O [O W V V M (A C7 I'- N I+ M 0m U7 I`� I-COti CO U7� NM CON N f17 u� . W 73 m N N C) m m V V V V V V' V It V V V m m m E O' Q ti C �f7 M V 00 w c N w N4 CS]N N t• C7� U]MC`' I~+V Q (P CV 6] uI 'q timmd[fl ryM Z N ¢ .0 C N W 47 l2 rm W ❑ CO (P �L7 C'7 N� Q❑y (D 4] Er E =Q.� cz� M N LpC�j UQ7MMNN Ntl7 W W r` (t] r r r r r r r W j r E o' W, v= O U7 Z > 0 U? N vL ti o cj U7 tJNN m Ln no o O 0 0 c CD Cp riC7 rf+m.-OoO I� IAvm NrQ ❑1 [O [moo ❑ aC)Z N' p7 W S E� C57 0. C = coV) V MN mNcltN rr rrr rrr 00 QQ ❑CD ❑ cr O r~ LU r2 ti OaODO 000Q0Q0O0 Q W EN m F- _ ❑ Em C W Q E Q 0 Q O 0 m to m N 'n 00 I+ 0 r-.--rCV NNm m C)m It Nf'tt U7 U7 U7 Cfl A S E •� W W'C W E Z Cw �U m ~ p ❑ �a z ~ o 6 0 �gn. NZ W U (j 503. 0E— ¢ rn y @ cq .N m E m o 0 v7 0 (n o (n o (n o ui 0 �n o �n o LO o u� o LO Q W Q (n E E N Q� �C7 H E (� mm V' V Ln 0[P (G I_�wb 90mm mF- o ❑❑¢` £�¢a. ❑ z _o C Z> D Q c U •°1 N 07 C J � L.L Y � Q O w a� � � d ¢ Er ¢ ¢ L7 W F-- 0-3 U aLO N � 0 07 C7 U- i- U- 0 N C'7 C O r OaV_ W O[=(tlO CCp D orCO o �, Ui o0 a Q o o 0 0 _v IL E 3 N to O `m ❑ �I II II II ❑ �! Cv II Ir p U r C N N N r= Ul QO II r 0 N III PIE SW&NE_ SEC. 12, T.2SN., R.22W., P.M. UNDflCNWN0 SO= ALM FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA 811 r ----- `------ 1 O L________I Q 1 w---------------------' `---------- Y--_---_-RIM.29T,1 I - — ry — - - _ _ LEGENDyi I" Ir -1 ��- ri; I'� -- - �s-t� 1I III r r I? i 1r I I I I I SIB 1! 11 z y I I�r �r�-� r� I. --.I I I III r 1 I I I I Iv- NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT r�r 7 i}� 24L 4N TS -- �� 1 39L UN TSDING 91 �1 1 _] �1 BUILDING I! Liter 129 uNITSy r :- 1 PCC CONCRETE - ='I LANDSCAPE AREA/OPEN SPACE L.H L m" .. .J —E 1 ILs^4--�. ., _ �� 1 �.�—� -i r-IF PST �. r..T �io�i iI /ir �K%�r 1 1 x2 1 11..11 SITE DATA PHASE _ _--�\�n� J 0 BEEN NI'FEEI DN �1LL1 GARAGES PROVIDED A -� PH O, �L �� L ��� ' I S •: 1 1 I� STANDARD R PARKING STALLS PRI DEDD 5.'ill „r -� ( 911E +1 . LL PE O KIJ 1, a IN1 E I _:_ - 9 0= I _ M 10 n 1 S ZS Z_'I S ZJ- Z_.:_ - TOTAL PARKINSTALLS (IN GIT PHASEII L �m 11B29LDNITS3� -,y / h0 lr jBU LD NO B� Bu.,tt B� 1 n� J 1PII -1 r 4 �I T. 'I'Ir z9 uN Ts1 5� 1� 129 s1 ail 1 :Ifs ieu D NcsI Y"' 1 z9 u Ts I oPR APasED AREA Nu DF UN suL sPRavoD Lti ��1�_1_� L_—�11 44 ! -114 ��i 1 P 2G4 E ,TE STANDARDG STALLS PRDKDED 229 I � z_ _ � _ NUMBER OF PDA STALLS PRGV DED r - T P� ALLS TOTAL KIN APARKIN SITE B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ANg TOTAL PAR NUMBER OF RESDENT AL BULD NGS 14 - P51 UMBER OF NON-RUMBEREODUNITSL BUILDING 324 R GES PROVIDED NUMBER tFLE-pED NSTANDARD PARKING STALLS PRONDEDSEliSTALLS PROVIDED TOTAL I TOTAL reKING RELIMINARY SITE PLANI A M M E N I T I E S LEGEND ee SCALE: 1- = 50' STORM POND BOTTOM AREA-26.194 M s v BALL COURT 1—J POOL II A.V¢Ll1 TOT LOT PLAYGROUND p—F IJ] PLANING BEDS �''-•�,lil � MpNTAry9 d l GRAPHIC SC Al I s s PLANS o N0. INA�u COMMUNITY BBO/GATIERING SPACE 0 NOT APPROVED easTEa�°; N PICKLE BALL COURT �� FLAT" «. BY AGENCY avAL SCALE: B THE CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK SHE g NAVD - 88 ATe. ++n Din AW C E PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOUND5M REBARCP1s PIP-89EGPERc. OFS No awwN amA upmEVIN� 1 OF 2 FAA AND T—wE x,`,'"losl�,SU_A. TWO MILE DRIVE LOBNuwaEa A taunt wee noN an emeweo. Taw l PH KALISPELL, MONTANA 17-1875 No. oATE By �AHEvlslonls RAC TO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT NO: REGARDING; Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2529 N, Sullivan Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ph 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-6227 MEMORANDUM J/3t/F4„-\*' City of Kalispell Planning Commission Todd R. Whinnle. P.E. Ben Goodmansen E.I.T. December 21, 2017 u' 17-1875 NEE' ` Crossings at Spring Creek Requested Traffic Information Potential Imuacts to Existiniz Levels of Service This Traffic Memorandum of potential impacts related to the development of the Proposed 352- unit Crossings at Spring Creek multi -family project has been created without the ability to acquire traffic counts due to the time of the year. As was noted in the Hearing, traffic counts are usually not collected from "Black" Friday in November of each year until at least a week after school starts in January, usually about the 15'h of the following year. In this case the no -count period would have extended fi•om November 24, 2017 until January 15, 2018. From January 15`h on, traffic count days and times would be weather dependent due to loss start up tunes at intersections (icy conditions), travel pattern changes and other driver tendencies that occur during whiter inclement weather driving situations. We bring this up in the pre -amble to remind the reviewer as well as the Planning Board that the information being provided is general in nature, however, the changes would be consistent between the time period evaluated for the with and without the project scenarios. Therefore, as the Conditional Use Hearing has been Continued for more traffic information, it should be noted that this Memorandum has been prepared with limited traffic information based on volumetric counts obtained from both the City and MDOT. Per guidance received from the City, we have provided initial Level of Service reviews of three (3) intersections that are of concern within the immediate area of the development. The intersections identified for initial evaluation are Hawthorn Avenue at Three -Mile Drive and at Two -Mile Drive as well as Two -Mile Drive and Meridian Road. Traffic Volumes and ADT Volume Balancin As no counts were readily available from previous traffic work we obtained Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes from the MDOT traffic volume map. Additionally, we requested actual ADT counts from MDOT as well as any directional counts, which were provided and are included in the appendix. From this information, we were able to establish a base of traffic flow December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5 in the immediate area utilizing the volume balancing method, which is based upon the directional splits that were available. From this volume balancing process, we were able to interpolate the turning movements at the three intersections. From this breakdown of ADT, we then applied the HCM method that approximates the volume of the PM Peak hour to be 10% +1- of the ADT. We did not adjust these volumes for any seasonal volumes. Trip Generation As a part of this memo, we have included the trip generation characteristics from the November 2017 Trip Generation and Distribution Letter that accompanied our original submittal. It is italicized for clarification and differentiation from the new information provided in this analysis. Trip Generation Characteristics As noted earlier, trip generation rates far the AM and PMpeak hours are determined by the use of the Trip Generation Manual, 0 Edition published by the Institute of Trams ortation Engineers (ITE). The purpose of the Trip Generation Manual is to compile and quanta empirical data into trip generation rates for specific land uses within the US, UK and Canada. Proposed Land Use For the proposed 324-unit multifamily development, Land Use Code (LUC) 220 Apartment was used to establish the number of trips generated by the proposed land use. The trip generation rates and the anticipated number of AM & PM peak hour trips for the proposed land use are shown on Table 1. Table 1-Trip Generation Rates or LUC 4 220 —Apart fir, AMPeakHour Trips Iivelli1ig Directional . 'Units Vol. C" U. SI Distribution Trips/ Unit ZU% In 80%n Out 324 166 33 133 Average Daily Trip Ends ADT Units:. Rate ::..:... ADT 324 665 2.155 PLU Peak Hour Tri is Vol.a 0.62 Directional. Distribution Tripsl Unit n 65% In . ; '35% Out. 201 131 _... 0 As shown in Table 1, the proposed land use is anticipated to generate 166 trips in the AMpeak hour, with 33 trips entering the site and 133 trips exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, the proposed land use is anticipated to generate 201 trips with 131 trips entering the site and 70 trips exiting the site. The proposed land use is anticipated to generate 2,155 additional average daily trips talfrom the site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION As shown on the Preliminary Site plan, the property will be accessed by two-mile Drive, Yellowstone and Teton Streets (Please see Figure 2, Preliminary Site Plan). It is anticipated that the trips of the site will generally use the following roadways: December 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Two Mile Drive is an East/West, Two-way, 2-lane arterial that extends east from Spring Creek Road, over US 93 By-pass (no access) to Meridian Road. Two -Mile Drive serves generally residential and large lot residential land uses with commercial land uses near Meridian Road. The posted speed limit on Two-lfile Drive is 25 MPH. Teton Street is an east/west, two-way, 2-lane local access road that extends west from Hawthorn Avenue to the project east boundary. Teton Street serves multifamily residential land uses. The speed limit on Teton Street is 25 MPH. Hawthorn Avenue is a northlsouth, two-way. 2-lane; local access road that extends north from two-mile drive through Liberty Street to Three -Mile Drive. Hawthorn Avenue serves Multi Family residential land uses. The speed limit on Hawthorn Avenue is 25 MPH. Considering many factors such as the surrounding transportation facilities, typical commuting patterns, existing development in the area, and Average Daily Traffic counts, trafc for the proposed development is anticipated as follows: 45% of trips are anticipated to travel tolfrom the east via Two -Mile Drive. 10% of trips are anticipated to travel tolfrom the west via Two -Mile Drive. 45% of the trips are anticipated to travel tolfrom the North via Hawthorn Avenue, where 25% will go tolfrom north via Meridian Road, and 15% will go tolfrom the north via the US 93 Bypass. Please see Figure 3 for a graphical representation of this distribution. Based upon the project trip generation previously submitted the project trip distribution at the three intersections was determined implementing using the volume balancing discussed earlier, No AM Levels of Service were evaluated at this time as the 1 0% rule does not apply to AM Peak Travel times as the motoring public does not necessarily travel to Work or other destinations as they do in the PM when travelling from work or other to home. Level of Service - Existin Level of service at the intersections as described by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was used to evaluate the performance of the three intersections. The intersection level of service was calculated utilizing the HCM software as implemented in Syncro 9 build 912 (9.1.912.4). Table 1 below summarizes the calculations that can be found attached to this Memo. Table I - Existing fntersections Levels o Service (S)i�•rmalize.(l j_ .` U usi n 1 eci 17c1<ai,. {sec 1 t.iS.'., ( } u ._ Three Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue U 13.8 B Two Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue U 9.7 A Two Mile Drive & Meridian Road S 14.7 B As shown in Table 1 the level of service of the three intersections are anticipated to be operating at an acceptable level which are anticipated to be Levels of Service in the AIB range noting little to no delay. December 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5 Level of Service - with the Proiect For this analysis the project trips from the trip generation and distribution letter were added to the existing traffic volumes and a level of service calculation was made using the aforementioned Synchro traffic software. Table 2 Summarizes the calculations that can be found attached to this Memo. Table 2 - Fvistina Intersection-v Levels of Service with RSI,C I JON ........ .... .:wTi-nalize - � ci i iaiali ecl-! 1)�la �sCisC 1 OS I Three Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue U 16.7 C Two Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue U 10.4 B Two Mile Drive & Meridian Road S 15.2 B At full buildout and as noted in Table 1 from the Trip Generation study, this project will generate 201 PM Peak Hour trips, with 131 entering the site and 70 exiting the site. These trips when distributed will result in approximately 75% of the sites generated trips to be "to 1 from" Two - Mile Road. This would mean then that during the PM Peak hour a total of 98 trips would enter from Two -Mile Road or about 1.6+1- vehicles per minute and conversely during the PM Peak hour approximately 52.5+1- trips would leave the site using Two -Mile Road or less than 1 +/- vehicles per minute. Based on this then it would be reasonable for a phased project to expect that after the final phase that the remaining 33+1- PM Peak trips would enter the site from Teton or about one trip per every two minutes and likewise, the remaining 18+1- PM Peak hour exiting trips would leave the site or about one trip every 3+1- minutes. We recognize that vehicles tend to enter and exit the site in small platoons of 2 to 5 cars, so the references per minute are for visual and spatial representation only. As Level of Service is based on hourly volumes, we have added these hourly volumes to the existing intersections and calculated the changes in Level of Service that could be anticipated by the full development of this project on those intersections. The result is as shown in Table 2 and the impacts are minimal with Three Mile Drive and Hawthorne being the most affected dropping from 13.8 seconds of average delay and an existing LOS of B to an average future delay of 16.7 seconds of and an LOS of C, an increase in average delay of 3.0+1- seconds. This spot evaluation of three identified intersections has been completed to address concerns that were raised at the Planning Board hearing. It should be noted that the impacts noted would be representative of impacts from the proposed project if the intersections were counted during more acceptable traffic counting times. That is to say that while the existing movements were determined using volume balancing, that given the ADT obtained from the area, that the distribution and impacts from the proposed project December 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5 would be proportional to any changes in turning movement volumes that may be obtained at time a full traffic study is completed. Summary While this analysis is not definitive as no specific turning movement counts were able to be obtained, it can be seen that using the existing traffic volumes in the area, that this project while having an impact, would only have a minimal impact to the intersections analyzed. As requested this evaluation is a demonstration of the anticipated impact that such a development Day have on the area transportation system, given the subjective methodology used in this evaluation it should not be used for anything more than it's intended use which is to evaluate potential impacts as a percentage of total traffic. As included in the Staff Conditions, this project will be required to complete a full traffic study utilizing traffic counts, when obtainable prior to obtaining any building permits and making improvements to intersections as required. This future traffic impact study will look at these three nearby intersections and any other scoped intersections and include items such as, background growth rate, background projects and buildout year. We look forward to answering any questions that you may have at the Continued Hearing and hope that this limited analysis can allay any concerns that you the Board or the surrounding public may have that the impacts from this project, beyond the fact that it is a new project adding more vehicles to the City's roadways, are or will result in traffic impacts that will be minimal and manageable. u `1 nI'j L'1UI LA `" a Reterst E}rlve Old Reserve Dr►vo Faeserre Place W Reserve (A W Res*Na Or W REFSen c7 coun" Waj# _ Q Glacier High Schonl C'GUmrryWay �0t Costco Wflolesale Q crf %e S 1 Walmart Supereenter +p a y3 dMva C11 o Vlllag Z � Flathead Valley Community College �url3lo Stagg Four Mile Ur Four Me Ur Grassi lair Lot 6' I pul Grand a _ View Park G' Surnrrtrt H I�rrt�� Patkr:Ggc" Dr J Nor' llrtge - a dy s Fx j7f PROJECT s� i3 m SITE A _`- � q {_ Z L7 azfl az� T r Y _ e � � E �li�olrHa � rir3 .si � ❑S'� N Magic Diamond Casino Sl �.v 43 „{ fRr` F1 ADprevr=v - Conrad MWiel0w&un Marts Ogle studio 0 0 5 p, 910T TO SCALE PRMJ-1 E375 DATE #: t /20/17 [DATE: 12.Zfl. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION C3 [DRAWN: eNG CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK AW E APPROVED: TRW TWO-MILE DRIVE & COOPER LANE K A L I S P E L L., M O N TA N A WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 S. PINES ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY`. WASH INGTON 99216 FIGURE t VI C 1 N I TY MAP PH 50&893-2617 PAX' 509-925-0227 I Fl� 111HRI ?!!!1a 11M!!!!1!1 �olm 25% AM(8/33) PM(33/18) u� A# N - k R,; is ae •avoo. rt AM(5/20) PM(20/11) 15% AM(7/28) PM (27/15) w 7 af 0 w J_ w w af AM(IN /OUT) MERIDIAN ROAD AM(15/60) PM(59/31) w f1 J 45% UT) COOPER LN PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION TOTAL IN I OUT AM PEAK 166 33 i33 PM PEAK 201 1 131 7D AM(3/13) a PM(13/7) W 3 US 93 BYPASS AM(2/7) Lri PM(6/3) PROJ#�: a75 DATE 12/a 17 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION DRAWN: St4G CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK APPROVED] TRW TWO-MILE DRIVE & COOPER LANE KALISPELL, M❑NTANA FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION NOT TO SCALE 1111 E WHJPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEFRS 21 S. PINES ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99216 PH: 909-M-2517 FAK SM-926.0227 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Existing 1: Hawthorn Ave. & 3-Mile Dr. 12/1912017 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1,8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations �r Traffic Vol, vehlh 303 25 51 373 25 51 Future Vol, vehlh 303 25 51 373 25 51 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade. % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 329 27 55 405 27 55 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 357 0 859 343 Stage 1 - - - - 343 - Stage 2 - - - - 516 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1202 - 327 700 Stage 1 - - - - 719 - Stage 2 - - - - 599 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1202 - 308 700 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 308 - Stage 1 - - - - 719 - Stage 2 - - - - 564 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 13.8 HCM LCS B Minor LanelMalor Mvmk NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehlh) 493 - 1202 HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.168 - 0.046 - HCM Control Relay (s) 13.8 - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LQS B - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 0.1 - 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Existing 2: 2-Mile Dr. & Hawthorn Ave. 12/19/2017 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' 1� Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 12 85 85 27 27 12 Future Vol, vehlh 12 85 85 27 27 12 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flow 13 92 92 29 29 13 Major/Miner Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 122 0 - 0 225 107 Stage 1 - - - 107 - Stage 2 - - - - 118 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1465 - - - 763 947 Stage 1 - - - 917 - Stage 2 - - - 907 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1465 - 756 947 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 756 - Stage 1 - - - 917 Stage 2 - - 899 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay. s 0.9 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 _ Capacity (vehlh) _ 1465 806 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.009 0.053 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Existing 3: Meridian Rd & 2-Mile Dr. 12/19/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations to '� 1 t r f i Traffic Volume (vehlh) 104 5 104 5 5 5 104 786 5 5 745 104 Future Volume (vehlh) 104 5 104 5 5 5 104 786 5 5 745 104 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus. Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlin 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 113 5 113 5 5 5 113 854 5 5 810 113 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 534 20 458 430 257 257 357 1025 871 228 1716 239 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, vehlh 1399 68 1526 1269 856 856 603 1863 1583 641 3120 435 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 113 0 118 5 0 10 113 854 5 5 459 464 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1399 0 1593 1269 0 1712 603 1863 1583 641 1770 1786 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 3.4 0.2 0,0 0.2 8.4 22.9 0.1 0.4 9.5 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0A 3.4 3.5 0.0 0.2 17.9 22.9 0,1 23.3 9.5 9,5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 534 0 478 430 0 514 357 1025 871 228 973 982 V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 534 0 478 430 0 514 357 1025 871 228 973 982 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 16.2 0.0 15.9 17.2 0.0 14.8 13,6 11.2 6.1 20.9 8.2 8.2 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 0.9 0.0 1.2 0,0 0.0 0.1 2,3 8,0 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 °file BackafQ(50%),vehlln 1.5 0.0 1,6 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.6 13.9 0.0 0.1 5.0 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 17.1 0.0 17.1 17.3 0.0 14A 16.0 19.2 6.1 21.1 9.8 9.8 LnGrp LDS B B B B B B A C A A Approach Vol, vehlh 231 15 972 928 Approach Delay, slveh 17.1 15.7 18.7 9.9 Approach LOS B B B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 Ia 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 37.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18,0 33,0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 24.9 6,0 25.3 5.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 6.6 0.8 6.3 0.9 Intersection .. Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.7 n HCM 2010 LOS B 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Existing W- Proj. 1: Hawthorn Ave. & 3-Mile Dr. 12119/2017 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 2.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T* +T Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 303 52 85 373 40 65 Future Vol, vehlh 303 52 85 373 40 65 Conflicting Peds, #Jhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 329 57 92 405 43 71 Major/Mirror Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 386 0 948 358 Stage 1 - - - 358 - Stage 2 - - - 590 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1172 - 289 686 Stage 1 - - - - 707 - Stage 2 - - - - 554 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1172 - 260 686 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 260 - Stage 1 - - 707 - Stage 2 - - 498 - Approach E6 WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 16.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehlh) 422 1172 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.27 0.079 - HCM Control Relay (s) 16.7 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 1.1 - 0.3 - 17.1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: 2-Mile Dr. & Hawthorn Ave. 2016 Existing W- Proj. 12/1912017 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations O' 1� Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 12 111 133 41 34 12 Future Vol, vehlh 12 111 133 41 34 12 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 121 145 45 37 13 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 189 0 - 0 314 167 Stage 1 - - - - 167 - Stage 2 - - - - 147 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Criticai Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - 679 877 Stage 1 - - - - 863 - Stage 2 - - - - 880 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - - 672 877 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 672 - Stage 1 - - - - 863 Stage 2 - - - - 871 Approach' EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 10A HCM LOS B Minor LanelMajor Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR 8HLn1 Capacity (veh1h) 1385 - - 716 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.009 - 0.07 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A A - B HCM 95th % ile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 2 HCM 2616 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Existing W- Proj. 3: Meridian Rd & 2-Mile ❑r. 12/19/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1 + r 0 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 104 5 137 5 5 5 166 786 5 5 745 104 Future Volume (vehlh) 104 5 137 5 5 5 166 786 5 5 745 104 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 113 5 149 5 5 5 180 854 5 5 810 113 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 534 15 462 396 257 257 357 1025 871 228 1716 239 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow,vehlh 1399 52 1539 1228 856 856 603 1863 1583 641 3120 435 Grp Volume(v), vehm 113 0 154 5 0 10 180 854 5 5 459 464 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1399 0 1591 1228 0 1712 603 1863 1583 641 1770 1786 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 4,5 0,2 0.0 0.2 15.5 22.9 0.1 0.4 9.5 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4,0 0.0 4.5 4.7 0,0 0.2 25,0 22.9 0.1 23.3 9.5 9.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 534 0 477 396 0 514 357 1025 871 228 973 982 V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0,00 0,32 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.50 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 534 0 477 396 0 514 357 1025 871 228 973 982 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 16.2 0.0 16.3 18.1 0.0 14.8 15.8 11.2 6.1 20.9 8.2 8.2 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 0.9 0,0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.0 8.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °Toile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.5 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.0 13.9 0.0 0.1 5,0 5,1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 17.1 0.0 18.1 18.2 0.0 14.9 20.8 19.2 6.1 21,1 9.8 9.8 LnGrp LOS B - B B - - B C B A C A A Approach Vol, vehlh 267 15 1039 928 Approach Delay, slveh 17,6 16.0 19.4 9.9 Approach LOS 8 8 B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 37.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4,5 4.5 4.6 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 33.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 27.0 6.5 25,3 6.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 5.1 1.0 6.4 1.0 Intafkdfion Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.2 HCM 2010 LOS B 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 3 r I AM(7/28) oN PM(27/15) w PROJECT SITELG! Y ACE (1 N /O U T) ERIDIAN ROAD 25% AM(9/35) PM(34/14) N `^St AM(16/62) 45% PM(62/33) V\ 1J N z u N a in i n COOPER l.N I AM(3/14) PM(14/7) wLLI -j z � 3 � US 93 BYPASS ~ -,v*'M V!r.: ?. NOT TO SCALE AM(2/7) Ln PM(7/4) PROD #: 17-1975 ogre: 1 aixen 7 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION DRAWN: BNG CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK APPROVED; TRW TWO-MILE DRIVE & COOPER LANE KALISPE:LL, MONTANA FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM(5/21) PM(20/11) 15% TRIP GENERATION TOTAL IN OUT AM PEAK 174 1 1 35 139 PM PEAK 211 1 137 74 WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL ANC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING MR NORTH SLIWVAN ROAD SPOKAN E VALLEY. WASH NGTON99215 PH: 509.893.2617 FAX-- 5O9-9254227 rrr Montana Traffic Data a — x � 99 (7,70) L �. 9 oUnryru! E r>•n. mn. n, S (a2r(.1'0 cns yeti Lio Mil' S1 J'71 '^'h!!I Cl i � j !Yf � NFRrl�rs79#^ w Camaan 5l a 1 (N H hylh pn W Nlnp [! rem In 6 s 20 rra�.enn. Sr I'� I s ! - Gl Eynyn4} x member 18, 17 A 1:4,428 O.t 02 0-4 m! �11I P} V P( ,Ii { 0 0.175 0.35 0.7 Wn fl � �j � �-- V U ETr7i�y r4MO— .6 NER E. ETI. Em.. hm. ( N K.,C. INCAEL1ENi P, �] 2 078' - 1 JG3q -� �] ? [ Ulwik. E.ri Jw lrJ6. 1. Wr Chia Men➢ NMw E.ri Yaw., l.r. � � /pq S rfl�.inaf. M.omrind'a IJCwx,YOo.rlS,w.sM.ocvmkurn.w.d Z�� f�34 �r � y Iry � � ir.rJ�s1)..rCarnmrngr I L >? y6 n JJ_ I PFA It f 01- X steno. wars. 6v of I.nnd 10- .9 .ne 6ri. HERE. Gamma INCREMENT P. NGA. LAGS ilkmuu D.o+nm.mei 7nnne.noe • �I P� .�Q .•�Sr �. �fi: i� 1 ��-` 1 'V• 71 y^r * J r • ". f A, a • ` •`,� LI - � � �+ _ f - '• _� ", � • }7 ' ` 'Sig'• Y a' �1 �y.� _ •y� ,jai* � a - _a. ,. i 14r Ji �. �^ Vj Cl �r,7-tsar, � I •_ •71er• wood-[]r 11FDti - i `I50 } OF.}41•A4�'��... ^' j �`' 7C]^. PIi)U2::11-�` CL �E•'rhFLip." Zhrtir � •� f' Ben Goodmansen F r°m' Fair, Roy <rfair@mt.gov> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 1:44 PM To. Ben Goodmansen Cc: Jerstad, Peder; Crawford, Brittany, Wark, Don; Stump, Marie; Duke, Becky Subject: Counts in Kalispell MT Bell, As per your request, here are the AADTs for the following Short Term count sites. These are the 20I6 AADTs, by direction where available. 2017 AADTs will not be available until May 2018. 15-713-082 Two Mile Dr, E of Spring Creek Bridge 15-7B-070 Two Mile Dr, W of Meridian Rd 15-7B-072 Hawthorn Ave, N of Yellowstone St 15-7C-015 Meridian Rd, N of Idaho St 15-7B-037 Meridian Rd, N of Liberty St 15-7B-029 Three Mile Dr, W of Garlan St 15--7B-046 Three Mile Dr, W of Meridian. Rd 1,921 (Directional Unavailable) 4,156 (Directional Unavailable) 1,535 (Directional Unavailable) 17,385 (NB — 81N0 11 SB — 8,485) 22,614 (Directional Unavailable) 5,988 41B — 2,767 11,4Sff— 3,222) 7,783 (Directional Unavailable) If there is anything else we can assist you with, please let us know. Thank you. VISION ZERO zero deaths Zero serious injuries Roy M. Fair Transportation planner Traffic Data Collection & Analysis Montana Department of Transportation Office: 406-444-7217 Cell: 406-579-2354 Email: rfairr&Mt. ov From: Ben Goodmansen Lmailto:bRoodmansen wh;ppi--e.com) Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:27 AM To: Duke, Becky �bduke mt. ova Subject: Counts in Kalispell mt Becky Thank you for your efforts, As we discussed I am looking for directional counts at the following count sites: 15-7B-082 15-7B-a7Q 15-7 B-B72 15-7C-015 15-7 B-B37 15-73-029 15-7B-046 Thanks again Ben Goodmansen, E.I.T Engineer Technician Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc, Phone:509.893.2617 1 Fax:569.926.0227 --W(IE Whipple Consulting Engineers t !;outh Fme ti Road • Sppfsne VRIIOy. WA OIJ2N whVg&CC.caen C (M C) WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 21 S. Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ph 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 R� � O MEMORANDUM 7s cc TO: ; City of Kalispell Planning Commission w . __ FROM: Todd R. Whipple, P.E. Ben Goodmanscn E.Y.T. Is DATE: January 18, 2018 �1Cj� 1 PROJECT NAME: ' NO, 17-1875 Crossings at Spring Creek ......................... 3 _� ._._._.-._. REGARDING:: Requested Traffic Information Potential Imnacts to Existinsa Levels of Service In the December traffic memo, a level of service analysis was completed using interpolated traffic movement volumes as traffic counts were not able at that time. From this information a concern was raised that the proposed project would add average delay to the intersections and that delay would change the LOS grade as defined in the HCM 2010. This is reported to occur at the intersections of Three Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue and Two -Mile Drive & Hawthorn Avenue. Both intersections are unsignalized and two-way stop controlled. The intersection of Three -Mile Road & Hawthorn Avenue was reported to go from LOS B with 13.8 seconds of average delay to LOS C with 16.7 seconds of average delay. It is noted that the threshold between LOS B and LOS C is at 15 seconds of average delay. The intersection of Two -Mile Road & Hawthorn Avenue was reported to go from LOS A with 9.7 seconds of delay to LOS C with 10.4 seconds of delay. It is noted that the threshold between LOS A and LOS B is at 10 seconds of average delay. As the City of Kalispell requests that proposed projects do not lower the current level of service, a means to return the intersection level of service may be required. At this level of operation, the change in level of service, crosses over the threshold for letter grade by a fraction to nearly 2 seconds. LOS A to B and LOC B to C. This change would be an imperceptible difference to drivers traveling through the intersection. And because there is so little delay anticipated the addition of a right or left turn lane on the minor street would have little effect to raise the intersection level of service back over the threshold, while it would improve it back a fraction of a second. As shown on the attached calculations a right turn lane on Hawthorn Avenue at three Mile Drive would reduce the average delay from 16.7 seconds to 16.5 seconds, but both calculations are over the threshold of 15. Likewise, on the attached calculations a left turn lane on Hawthorn Avenue & Two -Mile Drive would reduce the average delay from 10.4 seconds to 10.3 seconds. It is our opinion that these types of improvements when warranted are a betterment to the transportation system and should be considered appropriate mitigation for the impacts incurred. HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Existing W- Proj. IMP 2: 2-Mile Dr. & Hawthorn Ave. 01/18/2018 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1,6 MovemeRf_ ^. EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 T r Traffic Vol, vehlh 12 111 133 41 34 12 Future Vol, vehlh 12 111 133 41 34 12 Conflicting Peds, #dhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 121 145 45 37 13 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 189 0 0 314 167 Stage 1 - - - 167 - Stage 2 - - 147 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - 679 877 Stage 1 - - 863 - Stage 2 - - 880 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1386 - 672 877 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 672 - Stage 1 - - 863 - Stage 2 - - 871 - Approach: EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 10.3 HCM LOS 8 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt. EBL EBT -� WBT WSR SBLrf1 SBLn2 Capacity (vehlh) 1386 - 672 877 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.009 - 0.055 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 10.7 9.2 HCM Lane LDS A A - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(Veh) 0 - - 0.2 0 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Existing W- Proj. IMP 1: Hawthorn Ave. & 3-Mile Dr. 01/1812018 Intersection Int. Delay, slveh 2.6 Wnnnt EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ti * r Traffic Vol, vehlh 303 52 85 373 40 65 Future Vol, vehlh 303 52 85 373 40 65 Conflicting Pods, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - - 0 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flow 329 57 92 405 43 71 Major/Minor Major1 _ _ Major2 M_ inorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 386 0 948 358 Stage 1 - - - - 358 - Stage 2 - - - 590 - Critical Hdwy - 4.12 - 7.12 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 6.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.12 Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1172 - 241 686 Stage 1 - - - 660 - Stage 2 - - - 494 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Gap-1 Maneuver - - 1172 222 686 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 222 - Stage 1 - - 660 Stage 2 - 444 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 16.2 HCM LOS C ►Tfl't:�=ml - iIT,M •TiINU,1iR:1W,II f RiYM: 1:3i: 1=1EMU 4MYTf: 11 Capacity (vehlh) 222 686 - 1172 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.196 0.103 - 0.079 HCM Control Delay (s) 25.1 10.8 - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS D B - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.3 - 0.3 - 17-1875 Spring Creek Apts Synchro 9 Report Whipple Consulting Engineers Page 1 BLDG 1 : GLACIER SCALE: NOT TO SCALE BLDG 1 : YELLOWSTONE SCALE: NOT TO SCALE NAVD - 88 C SS R—R —P PIPE N—S' PER C. CF s. NO BLDG 1 : TETON SCALE: NOT TO SCALE — Pt (�fMf III hFF! � I a I � > L L A 111 I l t BLDG ] ..k iLDO III 1` Z W Lo GRAPHIC SCALE 0 SO 1. 300 N FEET r $1 `0 II cllc�;-,TL - - RM �y�II �M � ill li i [NOTAPPROVED AGENCY �� a a33y S ry �6 w� 3 Mom„ Q z W r _ - d W ILQ} V N 2 m 2 m W Q W K JJ -- W W J cc g rolll „ SIP+' �N lil W l ° iXW ° I f If III rll r sLU 5 II m � 344 El z hl ❑ I r� �� N � I„ p •,�" � „�" � II g � • < r I 3 m ow a¢ u 0 i1e ; m Qo W Z F _ to ff 3 w ❑ C] J Q J J W � W YW N� N� O cl m ID m g� z o� 0 3�a° . .� . . .. .. f\ § . . �© ¥o:= )■ z9 CCk §mom§ A �(■; Bgso A . �§�. . . LLI k§)IL ■| B j _ : §: . \ ` LU • | :�. Ll Ul §Ul - .. �` � ! n \ . : §\ \ m§ [ f\ \\ ,r SW&NE,, SEC. 12, T.2SN., R.22W., P.M. 11141 SO= AE■r ONE = MAW 811 Io Q w ---------------- ------- ' `------ ----]jj ■ — — — —r -- — — ■ — — I$ AEE�111 ■ � I I I LEGEND I: ".r r r ��y�i r I I I I I 5 PHASE NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT J ,I }L 24L 4N TSB J�� l r i ' I -I 31L UN T591 �� 1 ] �I BUILDING r �,ir-� �- -i _ i J rl . lii� z4 - -21 C Im _ J PCC CONCRETE ■■/ , ��, ■>r ■■■■■■ r■ ■■■V"1 . . , �r -1� .,■..r �R-�L LANDSCAPE AREA/OPEN SPACE L— mN ... ■ ` 1%% ~, • `I I ■ : ! 4 �` `mil L ... J-- _�:. ■ �_}-� L I- _.r.. III _ IT PI I[I THAI". S, �r.. r�6��i - ��I��rll In.:ii � •.■....1.■■ ��LIit�iIi �JiJ ij � ����ir`.cI lm -��iJ ,%.\i "/i.i���'� in�: N Y"'T � 9HAS zTE 3 996662.66 FA. o�I II I� i,■'� �- -i�' PHI A%I SE I 1FL i � _ LE-II��o T _._ ..■ .■. ■ .r - ■ =I SITE DATA I i - g� I � r zr--z_-I r Ls -z---- PARCEL , i 1■� � I i -r .4GN d �\ Z /J _ ; _ _ • J' Zr- Z'- Ilan 5 L �r TB29LD NITS3li --, / ti r jBU LDNO Bj BUILd NOB - ,-J l i rr O I J Il ]- ` ■I I NUMBER OF REDENTAL BU LONGS 14 1 Ih-Y�4-YT--yI T ti4/ //iIF .A UNITS y�l it I29 �INTS1 y�l rr IR29DN151 ,I VI�I-1 I I� ��--r'�--711 Ial DNr�-7 ri li oA�NTs NurnGER of NDN R L GULGN� , NUMGER 3�4 NUMBER of GARAGES PGoVGEG 292 AND— 3aa NUMBER F PDA STALLS PRO' FEE - -- - � -�- - - -r--' _ n u ■•. I _ - am _ � �PI I Hs191 .31i sF � - -_I'� _____ L r�f lc)i LZ -- J _i �Is II n-fc' TOTAL PARKING s AS4OAKc se7 2.6 LA ', _ I N as ■ ■ ■ Isl IIp ■ — — — — — J ED s li Eli E- RELIMINARY SITE PLAN AMMENITIES LEGEND SCALE r=sD• s v BALL COURT 1—J POOL II W TDT LOT PLAYGROUND p—F IA PLANING BEDS — l GI.AI'HIC SC All NEE • COMMUNITY BBO/GA-ERING SPACE 5 5 PLANS 0 1■. INA Fu 4SE SINFLAILET1 NOT APPROVED D gTEa� .6_ PICKLE BALL COURT rI. BY AGENCY SCALE: aoJ x. +T-+eTa THE CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK SHEET g NAVD - 88 ATe. D+nene AW � E PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN D5M REPAROR1PPIDE-DEGCEPc.as. No awwN RAA FA,,,,N� 1 OF2 aAN TEwAv 1 x os'�P TWO MILE DRIVEVE Boa NuwaEa A +ann+ wee noN a" emeweo. Taw KALISPELL, MONTANA 17-1 Ei76 No. DATE av �APEVISIONB N/A PH WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc 2528 N Sullivan Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ph 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 TRANSMITTAL COMPANY: CITY OF KALISPELL 201 1 STAVE E, KALISPELL, MT 59901 DATE: 11 /7/17 DELIVERY TYPE: Email/Fedex ATTENTION: .�eiV� FROM: Todd R. Whipple, P.E. PROJECT No.: 17-1875 REGARDING:JKspell 2 Mile Drive and Yellowstone C TRANSMITTAL OF: i Conditional Use Permit Packet AS REQUESTED X FOR REVIEW RESPONSE REQUIRED DOCUMENT CC: NO. OF ITEMS EA SET DESCRIPTION 1 X City of Kalispell Application for Conditional Use Permit 1 X WCE Memo to the City of Kalispell 1 X City of Kalispell Petition for Annexation and Initial Zoning 1 X Chapter 27.10 RA-2 Residential Apartment/Office 1 X Trip Generation and Distribution Letter 1 X Adjacent Kalispell Current Zoning 1 X Proposed Kalispell Annexation Zoning 1 X Certificate of Survey 1 X Topographical Survey Exhibit 1 X Preliminary Site Plan 1 X Preliminary Landscape Plan 1 X Schematic Design NOTES/ COMMENTS: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED FOR THE NOTED RECIPIENT(S). THIS INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT DISTRIBUTION OR DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT IN CIVIL PENALTIES AS ALLOWED BY LAW. IF RECEIVED IN ERROR PLEASE DISCARD AND NOTIFY THE SENDER NOTED ABOVE. THANK YOU. City of Kalispell Application for Conditional Use Permit Planning Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/ planning APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSED USE: Residential High Density Apartment Project OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name: Kristi Taylor, as Successor Trustee of the Edna R. Begg Trust Mailing Address: 220 Woodland Avenue City/State/Zip: Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE OWNER(S) AND TO WHOM ALL CORRESPONDENCE IS TO BE SENT: Name: Brytech Construction, LLC, Tom Wilkes, Member and Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., Todd R. Whipple, PE Mailing Address: 9708 N. Nevada Street, Suite 001 and 2528 N. Sullivan Road City/State/Zip: Spokane, WA 99218 and Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Phone: 509.979.1333 and 509-893-2617 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records): Street Sec. Town- Range Address: NHN Two Mile Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 No. 12 ship 28 N.- No. 22 W. Subdivision Tract Lot Block Name: Agricultural Exemption No(s). 1 No(s). No. 1. Zoning District and Zoning Classification in which use is proposed: RA-2: Residential Apartment/ Office 2. Attach a plan of the affected lot which identifies the following items: a. Surrounding land uses. See Attached b. Dimensions and shape of lot. See Attached C. Topographic features of lot. See Attached d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings See Attached e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings. See Attached f. Existing use(s) of structures and open areas. See Attached 9. Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas. See Attached h. Existing and proposed landscaping and fencing. See Attached 11 3. On a separate sheet of paper, discuss the following topics relative to the proposed use: a. Traffic flow and control. See Narrative b. Access to and circulation within the property. See Narrative C. Off-street parking and loading. See Narrative d. Refuse and service areas. See Narrative C. Utilities. See Narrative f. Screening and buffering. see Narrative g. Signs, yards and other open spaces. See Narrative h. Height, bulk and location of structures. See Narrative i. Location of proposed open space uses. see Narrative j. Hours and manner of operation. See Narrative k. Noise, light, dust, odors, fumes and vibration. see Narrative 4. Attach supplemental information for proposed uses that have additional requirements (consult Planner). I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. Applicant Signature a'Q Date INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A pre -application meeting with the planning director or member of the planning staff is required. Application Contents: 1. Completed application form. 2. Appropriate attachments listed under items 2, 3, and 4 on the application. 3. Application fee based on the schedule below, made payable to the City of Kalispell: Conditional Use Permit: Single-family (10 or fewer trips/day) Minor Residential (2-4 units or 11-49 trips/day) Major Residential (5 or more units or 50+ trips/day) Churches, schools, public / quasi -public uses Commercial, industrial, medical, golf courses, etc. $250 $300 + $25/unit or 10 trips $350 + $50/unit or every 10 trips $350 $400 + $50/acre or unit or $.05/sf of leased space over 5,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 4. Electronic copy of the application materials submitted. Either copied onto a disk or emailed to planning(&,kalispell.com (Please note the maximum file size to email is 20mg) 5. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing the location and boundaries of the property. Application must be completed and submitted a minimum of thirty five (351 days prior to the planning board meeting at which this application will be heard. The regularly scheduled meeting of the planning board is the second Tuesday of each month. After the planning board hearing, the application is forwarded with the board's recommendation to the city council for hearing and final action. Once the application is complete and accepted by Kalispell planning staff, final approval usually takes 60 days, but never more than 90 days. 3 WCE Memo to the City of Kalispell WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc 2528 N. Sullivan Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ph 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 MEMORANDUM City of Kalispell �®N Todd R. Whipple, PE ...... _... ...... ...... ..._._........... ..... ........ ............. ...... ............. ...........................---._............................_._. November 8, 2017 ....... .................. __...................... ...... --... ---...... .... ........... ......... ................... _._._._....._............ .......__._..... ............... ...... _ ... _............... ......... ... McCloskey/Brytech —Kali 1875 NAME: ;Edna R. Begg Trust Lands .......................__i_._................ _..... --..___._._....:..._Prod ect_Name......-..."The... Cro s Conditional Use Permit - Project Narrative at e Creek" This memorandum is intended to supplement the Conditional Use Permit for the above noted 15 Acre property currently located in Flathead County, adjacent to and west of the Kalispell City limits along Two Mile Road, for which an Annexation request has been submitted concurrent with this application. Enclosed with the Conditional Use Permit are the following exhibits. A. Surrounding_ Land Uses, included is an exhibit noting the adjacent Kalispell Current Zoning and an exhibit of the Kalispell Annexation Zoning, shown that the site in question has been considered as RA-2, Residential Apartment / Office candidate at Annexation. B. Dimensions and Shape of Lot, included is a reduced copy of the Certificate of Survey filed with Flathead County creating Tract 1, a 15 Acres parcel, which is the subject of this Conditional Use Permit. C. Topographic Features, included is a reduced copy of the topographic map prepared by Sand Surveying, Inc. of Kalispell, MT. This document shows the major contours across the site as shown the site generally has 7 to 8 feet of fall from north to south. D. Size(s) and Locations of Existing Buildings, there are no buildings on site E. Size(s) and Locations of Proposed Buildings, see the attached site plan, color exhibit and elevations. The proposed apartment buildings will be 3 story walk up garden style apartment buildings with between 12 and 24 units per building with a height not to exceed 40-feet. The club house will be a rancher style building with vaulted ceilings with a height of 24 to 30 feet. F. Existing Use(s) of Structures and Open Space, as shown on the survey, the site has no structures and has been in pasture and hay production for several years. G. Proposed Use(s) of the Structures and Open Space, as shown on the site plan and the color exhibit, the proposed buildings will used as apartments, garages, mail kiosks, club house, barbecue and gathering spaces. The proposed uses within the site open spaces will include but Memorandum November 8, 2017 Page 2 of 3 not be limited to sport court, pickleball court, raised planting beds, walking paths/trails, pool, "tot" lot, etc... H. Existing and Proposed Landscaping and Fencing;, the site currently has some old field fence left over from pasturing days. The proposal site will be fenced with a 6-ft. fence except at proposed Teton Street which will be left open. Fencing is proposed for the east and west sides as well as the north and a portion of the south sides of the parcel. The intent is that the fencing would be a vinyl fence product, the color to be chosen at time of construction. Landscaping will be consistent with the proposed use and screening as required by City code. A prototypical landscaping product is shown on the color exhibit and would represent the type of landscaping that would be provided during development. Supplemental information related to Item 3 on page 2 of the application. a. Traffic Flow and Control, included with this submittal is a Trip Generation and Distribution letter that was prepared consistent with the available access streets and arterials within the general geographic area. b. Access to and Circulation within the Property, as can be seen from the site plan, the intent is for the main access to be from Two Mile Road, however, as a matter or circulation, Teton Road extended is proposed in the northern third of the site that will bisect the parcel from the existing City Limits to the extended City Limits after annexation. As such, the northern portion of the property will need to access or cross Teton to use the club house, pool and access the mail kiosks which most likely will be near the club house for security purposes. Teton, as an access provides additional east/west access to higher order transportation facilities and is expected to be used as an ingress and egress point to the overall site. c. Off -Street Parking and Loading, with the exception of parking adjacent to and on the south side of Teton, all parking is expected to be handled on site, see attached site plan. d. Refuse and Service Areas, all refuse and service areas will be handled on site and will be determined at time of final site plan, working in conjunction with the solid waste provider. e. Utilities, it is expected that the site will hook up to the City of Kalispell for all wet utilities and the appropriate providers of dry utility services such as electricity, gas, phone and cable. f. Screening and Buffering, as proposed and discussed earlier the site will be fenced, additionally, the storm drainage treatment areas are intended to be in a landscaped buffer strip between the fence (property line) and the series of garages that will be used to also buffer the increased density from the existing neighborhoods. Therefore, buffering on site will be via fence, landscaping and garage buildings. g. Signs Yards and Other Open Spaces, as noted earlier, the open spaces and yards within the site will be for the general enjoyment of the residents. It is anticipated that each building will be marked with a building and address signage and that the entries from Teton and Two Mile Road will also have monument signing noting the name "The Crossings at Spring Creek". h. Height Bulk and Location of Structures, see the attached site plan exhibits, the proposed elevation exhibits and other information already provided earlier in this memo. i. Location of Proposed Open Space Uses, see the attached site plan exhibits, the proposed elevation exhibits and other information already provided earlier in this memo. j. Hours and Manner of Operations, as this will be a residential development it will be accessible 24 hours a day, however, the club house may have hours of operation from 7 AM to 8 PM or as allowed by code. Memorandum November 8, 2017 Page 3 of 3 k. Noise, Light, Dust, Odors, Fumes and Vibrations, the completed project will create noise in the form of residential noises from residents and resident automobiles and pets if allowed. Additionally, noise from the completed project will include day to day operations and maintenance of a commercial apartment projects such as lawn mowing and other maintenance activities such as refuse collection, snow blowing, snow removal, etc... It should be anticipated that the site will be lighted consistent with commercial residential apartment projects to provide for property and resident security. Lastly, it should be expected that during development and construction that construction levels of noises such as from large earth moving machinery, nail guns, air compressors, etc... will be prevalent during working hours. Additionally, it would be expected that fugitive dust, fumes, odors and vibration will also be prevalent during working hours on site during development. It is expected that the development of the entire site may take 3 to 5 years to complete and that from the time permits are approved and construction begins that the phased project will have construction activities during working hours for the duration. Additional information. • As a part of the project, a plat of 3 to 8 lots may be prepared and recorded depending upon final project phasing. • This will be a phased project of at least 3 phases, the number and size of each phase will depend upon market conditions. • Construction and development would be expected to occur as early as the Spring of 2018. • Copy of the Annexation Request is attached for reference. City of Kalispell Petition for Annexation and Initial Zoning Planning Department 201 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/plannin2 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING NAME OF APPLICANT: Kristi Taylor, as successor Trustee of the Edna R. Begg Trust MAIL ADDRESS: 220 Woodland Ave. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, MT 59901 PHONE: INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Owner with subject parcel under contract to sell Other Parties of Interest to be Notified: PARTIES OF INTEREST: Brytech Construction, LLC, Tom Wilkes, Member MAIL ADDRESS: 9708 N. Nevada Street, Suite 001 CITY/STATE/ZIP: Spokane, WA 99218 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Purchaser of subject parcel PHONE: 509.979.1333 PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Address of the property: NHN Two Mile Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 Legal Description: Tract ID: 2822X12-XXX-2MA Cert of survey #20690 Tract 1 (Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #) SW Qtr of the MW Qtr of Sec.12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Flathead County (Section, Township, Range) (Attach metes and bounds as Exhibit A) Land in project (ac): 15 acres (eastern side of subject parcel) Ag Exmt Cert of Survey Pending Current estimated market value $500,000 at 50% build out $15MM at 100% build out $30MM Is there a Rural Fire Department RSID or Bond on this property Yes No If yes remaining balance is $ NA The present zoning of the above property is: R-1 The proposed zoning of the above property is: MA State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: Proposing a High Density Apartment project on the subject parcel 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. (Applicant) 1 (Date) APPLICATION PROCESS APPLICABLE TO ALL ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING APPLICATIONS 1. Pre -Application Meeting: A discussion with the planning director or designated member of staff must precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: the application procedure, compatibility and compliance with the Growth Policy, and compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding zoning classifications. 2. Completed application form. 3. Completed Petition to Annex and Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District form, including an Exhibit A, legal description of the property. 4. Application fee based on the schedule below and made payable to the City of Kalispell. Fee Schedule: Annexation (includes initial zoning) $250 plus $20Jacre 5. A bona fide legal description of the property from a recent survey, title report or deed which accurately describes the property to be annexed. pjl Chapter 27. 10 RA-2 Residential Apartment/Office RA-2 Residential Apartment/Office - 24 CHAPTER 27.10 RA-2 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT/OFFICE Sections: 27.10.010: Intent. A district to provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map. 27.10.020: Permitted Uses. (1) Barber and beauty services (2) Catering establishments (3) Church (4) Day care - home (12 or fewer) (5) Dwelling - single family - duplex - townhouse (2 attached units) (6) Fairgrounds (public) (7) Funeral homes and crematoriums (8) Home occupations (refer to Section 27.20.060) (9) Jail Facilities (public) (10) Laundromats or dry cleaners (11) Office - professional/goverrunental (12) Parks (13) Police and fire stations (14) Safe houses (15) Schools — K-12 (public) - post secondary (public) 27.10.030: Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. (1) Bed and breakfast (2) Banks and financial institutions (3) Community center (4) Day care - center (13 or more) (5) Dwelling - townhouse (3 or more attached units) - multi -family (6) Golf courses (7) Group home - 8 or fewer persons RA-2 Residential Apartment/Office - 25 - 9 or more persons (8) Homeless Shelters (9) Libraries, museums and similar cultural facilities (Administrative CUP) (10) Office — medical with limited overnight stay (11) Residential care home or facility (12) Schools - K-12 (private) - post secondary (private) - commercial (13) Utilities (primary distribution site) 27.10.040: Property Development Standards. (1) Minimum Lot Area (sq ft): 6000 + 1500 for each additional unit beyond duplex. (2) Minimum Lot Width (ft): 50 (3) Minimum Setbacks (ft): Front Yard - 15 Side Yard - 5 Rear Yard - 10 Side Corner - 15 Attached Garage (Front/Side Corner) - 20 Accessory Structures — See Section 27.20.020 (4) Maximum Building Height (ft): 40 (5) Permitted Lot Coverage (%): 50 (6) Off -Street Parking (refer to Chapter 27.24) (7) Fences (refer to Section 27.20.040) Maximum Heights (ft): Front - 4 Side - 6.5 Rear - 6.5 Side Corner - 6.5 (8) Signs (refer to Chapter 27.22) 27.10.050: Consolidation with RA-3 (Residential Apartment/Office). Under the July, 2010, adopted version of the zoning ordinance, the RA-2 (High Density Residential Apartment) and the RA-3 (Residential Apartment/Office) zones were consolidated. Trip Generation and Distribution Letter AWCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. November 8, 2017 W.O. No. 2015-1875 City of Kalispell 201 1" Avenue Kalispell, Mt 59901 Re: Crossings at Spring Creek Two -Mile Drive & Cooper Lane Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Dear Sirs; This Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) is for a proposed Multifamily residential development located north of the intersection of Two -Mile Drive & Cooper Lane. This letter will establish the anticipated trip generation and distribution for the proposed development as shown on Figure 2, Preliminary Site Plan. This report will follow the standards for traffic letters as required by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop approximately 14.91 ac +/- into a 324-unit multifamily residential development within 14 buildings. The development includes a clubhouse and recreation facilities. The development is separated into 3 sections, each section being separated by a roadway or drive aisle with parking. The development is proposed to be accessed by a main entrance on Two -Mile Drive near the center of the frontage and east of Cooper Lane. The project proposes to extend Teton Street through the development to the west end for future connection and extension. From the extension of Teton Street, the project proposes driveway accesses at the east and west ends. Please see Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan. VICINITY / SITE PLAN The project site is currently zoned as R-1 are located on a portion of the NW '/ of Section 12, T28N R22E W.M., within Flathead County, Washington. The Tract ID number for the project site is 2822X12-XXX-2MA. The surrounding area consists of multifamily residential to the north, east, and south. To the west are undeveloped and large lot residential land uses. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 1 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements City of Kalispell Planning Level Trip Generation & Distribution Letter November 8, 2017 Page 2 of 4 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Types The proposed land use is residential. ITE has developed data regarding various trip types that all developments experience. These are found in several places, however, for this analysis the Trip Generation Manual 9`h Edition as well as the Trip Generation Handbook were used to develop the criteria for this analysis. Generally, all existing and proposed developments will be made up of one or more of the following four trip types: new (destination) trips, pass -by trips, diverted trips, and shared (internal trips). In order to better understand the trip types available for land access a description of each specific trip type follows. New (Destination) Trips - These types of trips occur only to access a specific land use such as a new retail development or a new residential subdivision. These types of trips will travel to and from the new site and a single other destination such as home or work. This is the only trip type that will result in a net increase in the total amount of traffic within the study area. The reason primarily is that these trips represent planned trips to a specific destination that never took trips to that part of the City prior to the development being constructed and occupied. This project will develop new trips. Pass -by Trips - These trips represent vehicles which currently use adjacent roadways providing primary access to new land uses or projects and are trips of convenience. These trips, however, have an ultimate destination other than the project in question. They should be viewed as customers who stop in on their way home from work. An example would be on payday, where an individual generally drives by their bank every day without stopping, except on payday. On that day, this driver would drive into the bank, perform the prerequisite banking and then continue on home. In this example, the trip started from work with a destination of home, however on the way, the driver stopped at the grocery store/latte stand and/or bank directly adjacent to their path. Pass -by trips are most always associated with commercial/retail types of development along major roadways. Therefore, for this project pass -by trips will not be considered. Diverted (Linked) Trips - These trips occur when a vehicle takes a different route than normal to access a specific facility. Diverted trips are similar to pass -by trips, but diverted trips occur from roadways which do not provide direct access to the site. Instead, one or more streets must be utilized to get to and from the site. For this project, no diverted trips are anticipated. Shared Trips - These are trips which occur on the site where a vehicle/consumer will stop at more than one place on the site. For example, someone destined for a certain shop at a commercial site may stop at a bank just before or after they visit the shop that they went to the site to visit. This trip type reduces the number of new trips generated on the public road system and is most commonly used for commercial developments. The project has two land uses but no cross access driveways between land uses is anticipated, no shared trips were considered. City of Kalispell Planning Level Trip Generation & Distribution Letter November 8, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Trip Generation Characteristics As noted earlier, trip generation rates for the AM and PM peak hours are determined by the use of the Trip Generation Manual, 9rh Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The purpose of the Trip Generation Manual is to compile and quantify empirical data into trip generation rates for specific land uses within the US, UK and Canada. Proposed Land Use For the proposed 324-unit multifamily development, Land Use Code (LUC) 220 Apartment was used to establish the number of trips generated by the proposed land use. The trip generation rates and the anticipated number of AM & PM peak hour trips for the proposed land use are shown on Table 1. Table 1-Trip Generation Rates for LUC # 220 — Apartment AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Dwelling Units Vol.@ 0.51 Tripsl Unit Directional Distribution Vol.@ 0.62 Trips/ Unit Directional Distribution 20% M 80°lo Out 65% In 35% Out 324 166 33 133 201 131 70 Average Daily Trip Ends ADT Units '' -Rate ADT 324 6.65 2,155 As shown in Table 1, the proposed land use is anticipated to generate 166 trips in the AM peak hour, with 33 trips entering the site and 133 trips exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, the proposed land use is anticipated to generate 201 trips with 131 trips entering the site and 70 trips exiting the site. The proposed land use is anticipated to generate 2,155 additional average daily trips to/from the site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION As shown on the Preliminary Site plan, the property will be accessed by two-mile Drive, Yellowstone and Teton Streets (Please see Figure 2, Preliminary Site Plan). It is anticipated that the trips of the site will generally use the following roadways: Two Mile Drive is an East/West, Two-way, 2-lane arterial that extends east from Spring Creek Road, over US 93 By-pass (no access) to Meridian Road. Two -Mile Drive serves generally residential and large lot residential land uses with commercial land uses near Meridian Road. The posted speed limit on Two -Mile Drive is 25 MPH. Teton Street is an east/west, two-way, 2-lane local access road that extends west from Hawthorn Avenue to the project east boundary. Teton Street serves multifamily residential land uses. The speed limit on Teton Street is 25 MPH. City of Kalispell Planning Level Trip Generation & Distribution Letter November 8, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Hawthorn Avenue is a north/south, two-way. 2-lane; local access road that extends north from two-mile drive through Liberty Street to Three -Mile Drive. Hawthorn Avenue serves Multi Family residential land uses. The speed limit on Hawthorn Avenue is 25 MPH. Considering many factors such as the surrounding transportation facilities, typical commuting patterns, existing development in the area, and Average Daily Traffic counts, traffic for the proposed development is anticipated as follows: 45% of trips are anticipated to travel to/from the east via Two -Mile Drive. 10% of trips are anticipated to travel to/from the west via Two -Mile Drive. 45% of the trips are anticipated to travel to/from the North via Hawthorn Avenue, where 25% will go to/from north via Meridian Road, and 15% will go to/from the north via the US 93 Bypass. Please see Figure 3 for a graphical representation of this distribution. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The land use of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 166 trips in the AM peak hour and 201 trips in the PM peak hour. Based upon the projects location on an arterial and the projects multiple means of access it is our estimation that the proposed project will not have an impact upon the existing transportation system. We therefore request that the project be allowed to move forward without further traffic analysis. Should you have any questions related to this document please do not hesitate to call at (509) 893-2617. Sincerely, WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Todd R TRW/bng 17 encl. Appendix (Vicinity Map, Preliminary Site Plan, Trip Dist %) cc: Sponsor File APPENDIX 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. AM & PM Trip Distribution • N It 0 z O r_ FA—M �'iI Re 0 Glacier High School 0(wrivy way 10el Costco Wholesale „LT WalMart SuperCenter 0 %/1 j c Dt Lfb ,,Flathead Valley Community CIallege Ina o Gland View Park CL �A ;0 ParkFidge DF - PROJECT 7, -_ SITE 7T 17, � DA F----Tl Z I _X CL Magic Diamond Casino Faal 2 VIII Conrad MW-Iff�w&un Mark Ogle Studio Ln _?, S 5t 1%4 r 'OT TO SCALE PROD #: 1 7-1 B75 DATE: 11 /0B/1 7 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION DRAWN: BNG CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK APPROVED: TRW TWO-MILE DRIVE & COOPER LANE wCE KALISPELL, MONTANA WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99216 PH 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 25% AM(8/33) PM(33/18) AM(5/20) PM(20/11) -'- 1 �57. � I V, u N Lo PRO'j #: 17-1117 5 DATE: 11108/ 17 DRAWN: E3NG APPROVED: TRW� FIGURE 3 Im AM(7/28) PM(27/15) AWIN /OUT) ERIDIAN ROAD AM(15/60) PM(59/31) Ln Zui ZO 0 PROJECTY I SITE `� AM(3/13) PM(13/7) TRIP GENERATION TOTAL I IN I OUT 11AM PEAK 1 174 1 35 1 139 IIPM PEAK 1 211 1 137 1 _:L_jl US 93 BYPASS AM(2/7) PM(6/3) w NOT TO SCALE 45% COOPER LN TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION CROSSINGS AT SPRING CREEK TWO-MILE DRIVE & COOPER LANE A! N -E;F= KALISPELL, MONTANA WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON 99216 PH'509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 Adjacent Kalispell Current Zoning 7q, _0 ' "t ' "t r N k VONA 446 t i �+ • .e Amok Proposed Kalispell Annexation Zoning W- I ftooLu� I I Lli Certificate of Survey 0. TPT IVr AL 0 T, GO. TOG tat•;�W-r — — — — Ow kd ail FBI a 04-4 a JWcf aOOAAM Y.90'amroff NasCAM 14 A; 04% V W Topographical Survey Exhibit w JK '60-0 6 do 0) I C(( to 7r 1 )1"1 5-1 1 11 1 1, nj 069 'OD J sffupm%gaa jo srse . �ew H rn IQ, I o1v ce- C) 41 IL A VA or7 Q0 O riq V7 USA A aAl� 0 V�7 X le nog p p a hl C\i LO C\j BOOM W, -699 f W 4 m 0 r v O Preliminary Site Plan 91 SCE POOL I , I i I I I I ( I I I I I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ----------- - - UNITS _— I:I � I I I I �' L--sue- -s t i/ L 0. �Z: i Kz I J i �31E I ABOVE + 1 E AS E 0 1 IV-) 0 L J —J — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — \Lji > -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — F-1 BUILD611ING BUILD��NG 1 PHASE 11 (BELOW + I O'ABO 11 12 as IL L BUILDING FF — — — — — --' . 24 UNITS Z I 'BUILDING 6' BUILD G 8 24 UNITS ITS I L PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SCALE: I" = 50' TOT LOT PLAYGROUND COMMUNITY BBO/GATHERING SPACE w z U) GRAPHIC. I,"- Al i 50�5 50 Preliminary Landscape Plan Schematic Design gym/ `- ,.,_ -- j � II - .,,7IIII IIIIILII. 11 �. 1 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting December 5, 2014 Project No. 2013-025 Mr. Steve White Copper Basin Construction P.O Box 949 Hayden, ID 83835 Re: Groundwater Monitoring Harvest Bluff Parcel No. 13013.9008 Cheney, WA Dear Mr. White: We have completed the groundwater monitoring at the above -referenced site in Cheney, Washington. Attached is the piezometer summary showing 12 months of water level data from the piezometers installed in December 2013. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachment: Piezometer Reading Record 11-17-14 P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Reading Date 11/17/2014 Project Number: 2013-025 Client: Copper Basin Construction Test Location: All Piezometer Number Depth to Water (feet) Groundwater Llevation Depth Below Ground Surface (feet) P-1 19.18 2431.30 16.2 P-2 16.19 2427.13 12.9 P-3 16.73 2429.68 14.1 P-4 15.80 2427.33 12.6 P-5 11.88 2432.57 8.8 P-6 13.81 2431.89 10.9 P-7 14.32 2430.24 11.8 P-8 14.22 2430.07 9.7 P-9 13.28 2428.70 9.8 P-10 13.37 2427.81 10.8 P-11 17.01 2432.90 14.1 P-12 12.64 2431.86 9.9 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date 12/18/2013 Project Number: 2013-025 Test Location: P-1/13-1 Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: 20' Top of Riser Elevation: 2450.48 Ground Surface Elevation: 2447.5 Date Depth to Water (feet) Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface (feet) 12/16/2013 19.58 2430.90 16.6 1/16/2014 17.41 2433.07 14.4 2/17/2014 16.10 2434.38 13.1 3/17/2014 13.47 2437.01 10.5 4/16/2014 15.45 2435.03 12.5 5/16/2014 16.41 2434.07 13.4 6/19/2014 16.94 2433.54 14.0 7/16/2014 17.60 2432.88 14.6 8/18/2014 18.06 2432.42 15.1 9/17/2014 18.56 2431.92 15.6 10/16/2014 18.76 2431.72 15.8 11/17/2014 1 19.18 1 2431.30 1 16.2 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 - 2435.00 2430.00-� tGroundwater Elevation 2425.00 2420.00 0�y� e�1k ��yb 11 y�'v -1 ��1 kph \- 'v ��1 ��1 ��1 "v �1�1 P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 TPF C Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotedmical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date 12/10/2013 Project Number: 2013-025 Test Location: P-2/3-2 Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: 15' Top of Riser Elevation: 2435.50 Ground Surface Elevation: 2432.5 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 9.00 2426.50 6.0 1/16/2014 8.92 2426.58 5.9 2/17/2014 8.05 2427.45 5.1 3/17/2014 6.00 2429.50 3.0 4/16/2014 5.80 2429.70 2.8 5/16/2014 6.39 2429.11 3.4 6/19/2014 6.91 2428.59 3.9 7/16/2014 17.18 2428.26 11.7 8/18/2014 15.50 2427.82 12.2 9/17/2014 16.00 2427.32 12.7 10/16/2014 16.10 2427.22 12.8 11/17/2014 1 16.19 1 2427.13 1 12.9 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time Iadded riser 'cut off riser 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 tGroundwater Elevation 2420.00 ��tib ti�ti , ��ti ��ti ��ti yeti e�ti ti �ti �ti IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Project Name: Piezometer Data Summary Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date 12/16/2013 Project Number: 2013-025 Client: Copper Basin Construction Top of Riser Elevation: 2446.41 Ground Surface Elevation: Test Location: P-3/13-3 Depth: 17' 2443.80 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 17.04 2429.37 14.4 1/16/2014 17.03 2429.38 14.4 2/17/2014 16.40 2430.01 13.8 3/17/2014 13.26 2433.15 10.7 4/ 16/2014 13.21 2433.20 10.6 5/16/2014 14.03 2432.38 11.4 6/19/2014 14.94 2431.47 12.3 7/16/2014 15.15 2431.26 12.5 8/18/2014 15.62 2430.79 13.0 9/17/2014 16.17 2430.24 13.6 10/16/2014 16.52 2429.89 13.9 11/17/2014 16.73 2429.68 14.1 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 2420.00 S� S 4V ti�ti ��ti ��ti anti yeti 6�ti ^�ti ��ti C� ya�ti yti�ti Groundwater Elevation IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Client: Top of Riser Elevation: Harvest Bluff 2013-025 Copper Basin Construction 2443.13 Piezometer Data Summary Piezometer Installation Date Test Location: Depth: Ground Surface Elevation: 2439.9 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 16.10 2427.03 12.9 1/16/2014 15.70 2427.43 12.5 2/17/2014 13.74 2429.39 10.5 3/17/2014 12.97 2430.16 9.7 4/ 16/2014 13.14 2429.99 9.9 5/16/2014 13.49 2429.64 10.3 6/19/2014 13.76 2429.37 10.5 7/16/2014 14.39 2428.74 11.2 8/18/2014 14.83 2428.30 11.6 9/17/2014 15.28 2427.85 12.1 10/ 16/2014 15.61 2427.52 12.4 11/17/2014 15.80 2427.33 12.6 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 2420.00 ��ti� ��ti� S� 4V -11ti 11nti yeti 6�ti ^�ti ��ti C� ya�ti yti�ti 12/11/2013 P-4/B-4 15' Groundwater Elevation IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Client: Top of Riser Elevation: Harvest Bluff 2013-025 Basin Construction 2444.45 Piezometer Data Summary Piezometer Installation Date Test Location: Depth: Ground Surface Elevation: 2441.4 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 12.05 2432.40 9.0 1/16/2014 12.17 2432.28 9.1 2/17/2014 11.61 2432.84 8.6 3/17/2014 8.89 2435.56 5.8 4/16/2014 8.57 2435.88 5.5 5/16/2014 9.22 2435.23 6.2 6/19/2014 9.90 2434.55 6.9 7/16/2014 10.30 2434.15 7.3 8/18/2014 10.72 2433.73 7.7 9/17/2014 11.14 2433.31 8.1 10/16/2014 11.51 2432.94 8.5 11/17/2014 11.88 2432.57 8.8 12/13/2013 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 Groundwater Elevation 2420.00 titi�h ti�ti ��ti ��ti anti yeti ��ti ��ti lb C� yo�ti titi�y IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Client Top of Riser Elevation: Harvest Bluff 2013-025 Copper Basin Construction 2449.22 Piezometer Data Summary Piezometer Installation Date 12/13/2013 Test Location: P-6B-6 Depth: 17 Ground Surface Elevation: 2445.9 Date Depth to Water (feet) Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 17.89 2431.33 14.6 1/16/2014 17.22 2432.00 13.9 2/17/2014 16.07 2433.15 12.8 3/17/2014 12.62 2436.60 9.3 4/16/2014 13.60 2435.62 10.3 5/16/2014 14.49 2434.73 11.2 6/19/2014 15.23 2433.99 11.9 7/16/2014 15.69 2433.53 12.4 8/18/2014 16.11 2433.11 12.8 9/17/2014 16.56 2432.66 10.1 10/16/2014 13.42 2432.28 10.5 11 / 17/2014 13.81 2431.89 10.9 'ground surface lowered 'cutoffriser Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 -*--Groundwater Elevation 2420.00 6�1� C�1p 6�10. C�y� C�1b C�yp e�1b C�yb 0�yb (�10. C�yb N�y� 1titi ti ti�ti �ti ��1 yti S� ti gti 9L 11 1titi New Ground Surface Elevation: 2442.8 New Top of Riser: 2445.70 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Client: Top of Riser Elevation: Harvest Bluff 2013-025 Basin Construction 2444.56 Piezometer Data Summary Piezometer Installation Date Test Location: Depth: Ground Surface Elevation: 2442.0 Date Depth to eater feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 14.64 2429.92 12.1 1/16/2014 14.76 2429.80 12.2 2/17/2014 13.60 2430.96 11.0 3/17/2014 11.37 2433.19 8.8 4/16/2014 10.64 2433.92 8.1 5/16/2014 11.26 2433.30 8.7 6/19/2014 12.11 2432.45 9.6 7/16/2014 12.46 2432.10 9.9 8/18/2014 12.92 2431.64 10.4 9/17/2014 13.44 2431.12 10.9 10/16/2014 13.90 2430.66 11.3 11/17/2014 14.32 2430.24 11.8 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 Ir 2425.00 2420.00 titi�h ti�ti ��ti ��ti anti yeti ��ti ��ti lb C� yo�ti titi�y 12/12/2013 P-7/B-7 17' Groundwater Elevation IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Companv Geotechmeal Engneering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Piezometer Data Summary Harvest Bluff Pi-eter Installation Date 12/12/2013 2013-025 Test Location: P-8/B-8 Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: 15, Top of Riser Elevation: 2444.29 Ground Surface Elevation: 2441.2 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 14.26 2430.03 11.2 1/16/2014 14.39 2429.90 11.3 2/ 17/2014 13.61 2430.68 10.5 3/17/2014 11.95 2432.34 8.9 4/16/2014 11.82 2432.47 8.7 5/16/2014 12.13 2432.16 9.0 6/19/2014 12.57 2431.72 9.5 7/16/2014 12.90 2431.39 9.8 8/18/2014 13.24 2431.05 10.1 9/17/2014 13.90 2430.39 9.4 10/16/2014 13.91 2430.38 9.4 11/17/2014 14.22 2430.07 9.7 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time *ground surface lowered 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 tGroun dwater Elevation 2420.00 �ti3 .�ti° Gov° G�ti 6�ti0. `�0. "'0. New Ground Surface Elevation: 2439.8 TPF C Inland Pacific Engineering Companv Geotechmeal Engneering and Consulting Project Name: Project Number: Harvest Bluff 2013-025 Piezometer Data Summary Pi-eter Installation Date 12/12/2013 Test Location: P-9/B-9 Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: 15, Top of Riser Elevation: 2444.14 Ground Surface Elevation: 2441.2 Date Depth to Water (feet) Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 15.50 2428.64 12.6 1/16/2014 15.39 2428.75 12.4 2/17/2014 14.47 2429.67 11.5 3/17/2014 12.35 2431.79 9.4 4/16/2014 12.34 2431.80 9.4 5/16/2014 12.66 2431.48 9.7 6/19/2014 13.23 2430.91 10.3 7/16/2014 13.62 2430.52 10.7 8/18/2014 14.10 2430.04 11.2 9/17/2014 14.67 2429.47 9.0 10/16/2014 12.95 2429.03 9.5 11/17/2014 13.28 2428.70 9.8 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time `ground surface lowered `cut off riser 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 tGroun dwater Elevation 2420.00 Calk Calk Clyk C\,yk C\,Sk C\,yk Cl1k C\,yk C\,Lk C�tik ��s ti�ti ti�ti ,��ti k�ti 1�ti '�s ,�w ��ti '�ti 11' I'll New Ground Surface Elevation: 2438.5 New Top of Riser: 2441.98 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date Project Number: 2013-025 Test Location: Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: Top of Riser Elevation: 2441.18 Ground Surface Elevation: 2438.6 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 13.53 2427.65 11.0 1/16/2014 12.24 2428.94 9.7 2/17/2014 8.97 2432.21 6.4 3/17/2014 9.84 2431.34 7.3 4/16/2014 10.39 2430.79 7.8 5/16/2014 10.67 2430.51 8.1 6/19/2014 10.67 2430.51 8.1 7/16/2014 11.70 2429.48 9.1 8/18/2014 12.23 2428.95 9.7 9/17/2014 12.73 2428.45 10.2 10/16/2014 13.03 2428.15 10.5 11/17/2014 13.37 2427.81 10.8 12/11/2013 P-10/B-10 16' Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 Groundwater Elevation 2420.00 titi�y ti�ti ��ti ��ti anti yeti 6�ti ^�ti ��ti C� ya�ti yti�ti IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date Project Number: 2013-025 Test Location: Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: Top of Riser Elevation: 2449.91 Ground Surface Elevation: 2447.0 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 16.42 2433.49 13.5 1/16/2014 16.75 2433.16 13.8 2/17/2014 16.60 2433.31 13.7 3/17/2014 15.14 2434.77 12.2 4/ 16/2014 14.61 2435.30 11.7 5/16/2014 14.63 2435.28 11.7 6/19/2014 15.06 2434.85 12.2 7/16/2014 15.34 2434.57 12.4 8/18/2014 15.82 2434.09 12.9 9/17/2014 16.22 2433.69 13.3 10/16/2014 16.63 2433.28 13.7 11/17/2014 17.01 2432.90 14.1 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 2420.00 titi�h ti�ti ��ti ��ti anti yeti ��ti ��ti lb C� yo�ti titi�y 12/10/2013 P-11/B-11 17' Groundwater Elevation IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Piezometer Data Summary Project Name: Harvest Bluff Piezometer Installation Date Project Number: 2013-025 Test Location: Client: Copper Basin Construction Depth: Top of Riser Elevation: 2444.50 Ground Surface Elevation: 2441.8 Date Depth to Water feet Groundwater Elevation Depth Below Ground Surface 12/16/2013 12.41 2432.09 9.7 1/16/2014 12.75 2431.75 10.1 2/17/2014 12.14 2432.36 9.4 3/17/2014 9.62 2434.88 6.9 4/16/2014 9.90 2434.60 7.2 5/16/2014 10.31 2434.19 7.6 6/19/2014 10.95 2433.55 8.3 7/16/2014 11.35 2433.15 8.7 8/18/2014 11.86 2432.64 9.2 9/17/2014 12.24 2432.26 9.5 10/16/2014 12.49 2432.01 9.8 11/17/2014 12.64 2431.86 9.9 Groundwater Elevation vs. Time 2440.00 2435.00 2430.00 2425.00 2420.00 ��ti� ��ti� S� 4V -11ti 11nti yeti 6�ti ^�ti ��ti C� ya�ti yti�ti 12/10/2013 P-12/B-12 15' Groundwater Elevation FIGURE 3 I I 7 a oo ,n_+oo ,z+oo ,3+00 _-v oo .�s+ As+oa' n+oo., is oo 10,00z\ zt no x r ? �s1 3 - 1 �SRoad D_ -fo - f 3 Ij ..LL 1 + � ,�'� PoT_ yk i' ZO B-3/P- i 4 �S_ —6 '7� 2 { I 3 _ V `l'I hl ilfl llV �VVi �' B - 7Y A, _ - \ ^ _ l` 2 ` 3 4_ , 5 �6 7 �e 9" �.1U �' 9 yy, Borin /Piezometer Location Ma TPProject EC No. 2013-025 December 19, 2013 Harvest Bluff Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting 11708 west Betz Road Cheney, WA a o' .Iq a . a e v. v b ...q v j F T- IL \--- I I v rF I,' I II I FiLLL 9L6Z f J ON 9Z�6Z rr \ \ l JC'�iL L�6Z- O y � r / 6Z6Z IJ 1 f 08 6Z6Z i,gL6Z rL- 9L6Z r L� _SL6Z 5t3,O L, LON • G n u G J _\_ / l 1 � lz I O o 0 J N 03 N N 00 1 1l�iQlllll� X X X 7z" X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x X 19 fX X x X X X. X x � � x x x x x x _ x,, x ,Q x x �� x x x O O o -O o- o 0 o L o 0 X X X X X X X X � X x_—� X-- . X X X z x� Xp. Xp. Xp. Xp. Xp. X I X I (X x� . xp X fiAll L o— x— X, X.; X..' x X X D� I X , x —1Fx X x x (� I I L ✓ • o 4OO o 0 0 o I o I o o 0 ,x x X x x x x !' x �x x J x - x x x O O O O O O O O• / `x x x x x x x x x x x x x I 0 0 / O o• o f o 0 o O• I o• o _ o 0 X� X7 x x �X/ x\ \ X X_ I x I X I x X X X :': X � X / / X \ X X �;��. X I X X— TAX ' X- r�X )XO �X� x� Xp Xp I Xp I Xp I �X� Xtj �X X� , x X x X X I X 7-X- X X X , Q^� `L x . X\`x X X�>\X X X x X x X X o �sL 6Z o bp bp Xo o ., ' o XO o _ xo, o 0 "x IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting October 24, 2017 Proj ect No. 14-053 Mr. Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1566 Veradale, WA 99037 Re: Revised Groundwater Mounding Analysis Proposed AutoZone 1000 North Highway Colville, Washington Dear Mr. Whipple: As you requested, we have performed a revised groundwater mounding analysis for the proposed commercial development at the above -referenced site in Colville, Washington. The purpose of our services was to evaluate groundwater mounding for the proposed stormwater ponds at the site assuming the near -surface silts and clays are removed and replaced with a coarse -grained sand or sandy gravel. This addendum summarizes the results of our additional engineering analyses and opinions. AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a copy of a geotechnical report for the project. This report was titled "Geotechnical Investigation Report' prepared by Earth Science, LLC and was dated March 2, 2017. This report indicated the presence of fill overlying silt and clay (loess) in the upper 4 to 6 feet overlying silty to poorly graded sands. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 4 to 6 feet. We were also provided a copy of a report summarizing field infiltration testing for the project. This report was titled "Infiltration/Percolation Testing Report" also prepared by Earth Science, LLC and was dated June 29, 2017. The field testing was performed by GN Northern, Inc. using single ring infiltrometers. The resulting infiltration rates ranged from 1.8 inches per hour (in/hr) to 5.4 in/hr. This data was used to assist in our mounding analysis. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Revised Groundwater Mounding Analysis Proposed AutoZone Colville, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company ANALYSES AND OPINIONS Project No. 14-053 1000 North Highway October 24, 2017 Page 2 We performed a mounding analysis for the two proposed ponds to evaluate potential impacts to down -gradient properties. We performed the analysis based on work by Bianchi and Muckel (1970) and using methods developed by Todd (1980). Using these methods, we estimated the geometry of groundwater mounding by using the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) and transmissivity of the soils to estimate the mounding as a function of distance from the center of an equivalent square pond basin. For our analysis, we used a typical permeability (hydraulic conductivity) for coarse -grained granular soil having less than 10 percent by weight passing a 200 sieve. For this analysis, we a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10-' centimeters per second (cm/s) for both ponds. We used a specific yield of 0.25 for the granular soils and a saturated aquifer thickness of 10 feet based on the boring logs. Stormwater volumes for the annual and 10-year events were provided by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). The pond areas were provided by WCE. The following table summarizes the input values. Annual 25-year Hydraulic Pond Stormwater Stormwater Pond Area (ft') Conductivity Volume ft3 Volume ft3 cm/s 1 53,552 3,790 2,801 1.0 x 10-' 2 23,650 1,307 820 1.0 x 10-' For the annual stormwater volumes, we calculated a groundwater mound height ranging from 0.58 to 0.76 feet at the pond centers dissipating towards the pond edges. For the 25-year storm volumes, we calculated a temporary groundwater mound ranging from 1.08 to 0.57 feet at the pond centers again dissipating towards the pond edges. Based on the results of the mounding analysis, it is our opinion that infiltration of stormwater in the proposed ponds will not adversely affect down -gradient properties. Results of our mounding analysis are attached. REMARKS This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Revised Groundwater Mounding Analysis Proposed AutoZone Colville, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-053 1000 North Highway October 24, 2017 Page 3 Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. GENERAL REMARKS It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments: Groundwater Mounding Analysis Results N Etq *AS 0 W cr_ 372146 �SsJON (n a U Cl) C11 111 0 ((0 W Ooo N O O O C� N Cl) O N O O O O Cl) N W 7 0 O O LO N O O 70 O O 0 N coM O N O O O O Cl) cq 11LO 1 0 (0 W O oo N O O O O� N Cl) O N O O O O Cl) N W 7 0 (D O UL O co Lo N O O 7 O O O � N LO Cl)O N O O O O w 0 ID W O W N O O O C� N LO Cl) O N O O O O V M N l4 O} W co I� LO ID O O 7 co 0 N O O 7 O O O y co O Cl) O N O O O O 0 N cq 111 0 ((0 Uj O Cl! O O O O C� N LO M O N O O O O O M N 111 co � 0 LO (O � O W O coN if lf) 7 O O O O O � N 0 coO N O O O O co I j co 7 0 ((O N O USO coN O O 0 O � N 0 coO 4, N O O O O co cq W 11 7 0 (O N W O N N lf) O Lo 00 M � N 0 co N O O O O O co cq I j 7 (O O W O co N O O 0 n N N O co O N O O O O O N N N N N N N N +y^ O T m N N O O O O O E 16 E -6 E 1 E 0 s Ef X 3 _ co c m o 0 E U c f6 a 0 m r U N c _ c > g s .' w li U 0 c c U O Q J 0 2 Q H U) 0 J �Z T C (6 t? E O r U m 0)(D O LO O) O C� m N w O m U � d > (n a U Cl) N + M M O co O, W O N 0 N O O Lo 7 O O � N N O O N O O O O Cl) N + M M O 0 M O W O co 0 N O O Lo 7 O O N Lo N O O N O O O O Cl) N + M M O M O W O � 0 N O O Lo 7 O O � N N O O N O O O O M N + co co ID coC? O O coN Lo O O Lo 7 O O � N N O O N O O O O M N + co CoO, O 0 M W O CO 0 N O O 0 7 O O � N N O O N O O O O co W M W O � lf) N O O Lo 70 y co 0 N O O N O O O O 0 N M N + M coO, O Lo co W O co 0 N O O 0 79 O O O � N O O N O O O O O co N O 111 co Co N O M O UL O co lf) N lf) ul 7 Lo 0 M O M N co O N O O 6 O O + w M 0 O M 0 N W O lf) N O O lf) 7 0 - M N N O N O O 0 O co N w co M W O lf) CON!Lf lf) 7 N O M N if N O N O N O O O 6 O co N O+ W mo M N M O Q W O N 0 N O O Lf) 7 0 N ao O M N O O N O O O O N N N N N N N N +y^ O T co N N O O O O O co co co co M E 16 E -6 E 1 E 0 s Ef Q J X Y H (� X 3 _ C co m C c4 3 a O 0 o E U Y 5 2 '> co c f6 a 0 '> m r U N c t a _ ) E c > g s w Irl LL U N } 2 3 3 mU m c 0 co c c a N U O Q J 0 (n a U 111 O) � N W O co LO N O O N O O O N N (o O O Cl) O N O O O O co N O + O) (gyp N O UL O co LOO N O N O O O N N ID O (') O N O O O O W N O ooi N O O Oj O N N'DO co O N O O O O N O + Ui O N O UL O co li N O O N O O O N N O O co N O O O O cq I j O LO LO N W O co Li O O N O O O N N O O co O N O O O O co I N O+ W Lo ID N O W O coy N O O O N N (O O co 0 N O O O O 0 W cq 111 0) LO � N LLl O co 0 N O O N O O O O O N N O O M O N O O O O O co N O + W N 'D 6 LO O 0 N O W O co LO N O I` N O O O O O N O coO co N O N O O O co O + O LO O -7 LO M N O, W O co 0 N 0 N N O O O O O N N O coO N O O O O co N O W 0)Lo N O � (O cq O W O co lfi N 7 O N O N 00 M N N O coN O N O O O O O co N W N (mO 6 LO (O O Q W O co 0 N O O N O LO O co Un N O co O N O O O O O co N N N N N N N N U) O T m N N O O O O O E 16 E -6 E 16 E -0 0 s Ef Q J X Y H (� X 3 _ C m C o 0 E U f6 IL 0 m r U N c a _ E c > g s 'E w li U � `o �) U E U a 3 3 m m m 0 O c o c a N U o Q J 0 2 Q H (n 0 J �Z T C (6 O_ E O r U m 0)(D O LO O) O C� m N w O m U � d > (n a U I j 0)COO LO co W O co LO N 0 O LO N 0 O N N O O N O O O O co N W N �rOj Lq C) N O UL O co LO N O O LO N O O N 7 O O N O O O O co I j O CO j M W O co LO Cl! 0 O LO Cl! O Cl! N O O N O O O O co N W N COj O coUL N O O W LO N O O LO N O O CV 7 O O N O O O O co W 0)COj 0 COW O N 0 O LO N O Cl! N O O N O O O O co C l4 N W N �p co O co N O UL O co 0 N O O 0 N O O y N 7 O O N O O O O 0 W cq 0,COcoW O � N O N O O N N O O N O O O O O co N I j N 'COO O C) W N O US O co 0 Cl! O I` 0 Cl! O O O O Cl! 7 O O N O N O O O co O I j O co LQ co" N O W O co N N N 0 O N N 7 O O N O O O O O N W NCO 0 m N O w O � lfi N 7 O lf) N O O OD M Cl! 7 O N O O O O O co N I j N CO co O cq W O co N O N 0 Un Cl! O O No O O O O c0 N N N N N N N N U) O T m N N O O O O O E 16 E -6 E 16 E -0 s C co m C 3 � a O o E U Y 5 a`; 2 '> f6 IL 0 '= m r U N c 2 a _ E c > g s `o U E U a U) a N U O H (n 0 J � �Z T C (6 S? E O r U m 0)O O LO O O C� m N LU Q (6 U � d >