Loading...
Memo Wood/Outstanding Staff ConcernsThe City of Kalispell Building Department Brian J_Wood Zoning Administrator MH N Incorporated 1892 Voiz • : � I Bruce Williams, City Manager Brian J. Wood, Zoning Administrator April 24, 1995 Telephone (406) 758-7730 248 3rd Avenue East PO Box 1997 Zip 59903 Fax (406) 758-7739 n4l RE: Buffalo Commons PUD - Outstanding Staff Concerns The purpose of this memeo is to outline for you the remaining concerns staff has regarding the Buffalo Commons PUD application. These concerns, for the most part, have been expressed to the applicant at every stage of the application process and were brought to the attention of the planning board. Because the PUD is, in essence, a contract between the city and the applicant, it is in the best interest of both parties to have as complete a document as possible. It will benefit all involved parties (the city council, city staff, the applicant, and future property owners and developers) if the adopted document is both concise and comprehensive; the fewer the grey areas, the fewer the headaches down the road. With that in mind: 1) There are a number of land uses allowed outright in the PUD that require Conditional Use Permits elsewhere in the city. These include: tri-plex, four-plex, bed and breakfast, community residential facility, hospital, heliport and telecommunications company with appurtenant transmission equipment. While the tri- and four-plexes are reasonable and expected uses with minimal impact, the other uses are, in staff's opinion, extraordinary, and warrant the review afforded by the CUP process. Additionally, the surrounding property owners (current and future) deserve to be notified and to be given the chance to comment on uses with inherent potential impact such as a community residential facility (1225 2nd Avenue East group home as an example), a telecommunication transmission tower, a hospital or a heliport. 2) Although staff has been opposed to the idea of a 50-room hotel/motel at the northerly entry to the city, and cannot understand its relevance within a "neighborhood" commercial development, it seems clear that it will become part of the requested PUD. It is staff's recommendation that the operation of the facility be left up to the hospital; if they choose to allocate a certain number of rooms within the facility to hospital -related individuals, so be it. The zoning administrator does not have the resources to monitor the operation of a motel, and anticipates an enforcement nightmare, as all other innkeepers in the city are going to expect strict compliance with any agreement reached between the city and the hospital. 3) Staff has reservations about a few of the permitted uses within the Retail/Commercial/Office pod. Two of the listed uses, title company and investment firms, are not generally considered "neighborhood" commercial uses, and staff recommends their removal. Also, with an entire pod, some 33+ acres, dedicated to "Professional Medical" facilities, is it necessary to include medical clinics, dental clinics and physician offices in the Retail/Medical/Office pod? 4) The applicant's consultant agreed this morning to provide specific sign standards for the PUD. As of this writing, they had not been received. In the absence of such standards, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance standards applicable to the underlying RA-1 zoning will apply to the PUD. These strict standards (RA-1) are not in the applicant's best interest. 5) Development standards within each of the Pods address only the primary building on any given lot. Staff had recommended that the application, by reference, incorporate the accessory use standards of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (27.22.020). The applicant's attorney opposed the suggestion, their consultant seemed agreeable; I'm not sure where they stand on the issue. 6) Staff would have preferred that the applicant comply with Section 27.21.030(5)(m) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and provide "bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule." This, however, is not the case. If the applicant and the Public Works department clearly understand the infrastructure needs of each of the pods, regardless of the phasing sequence, and the city attorney is comfortable with any agreement assigning responsibility for the construction of the infrastructure, staff will reluctantly concede this point. It is very important to remember that the city is entering this agreement with the applicant, but once the property is sold we will be dealing with a new set of players.