11/19/10 Jentz to Deist/Release of Performance BondPlanning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispen.com/planning
MEMORANDUM
To: Deb Deist, City Treasurer
From: Tom Jentz, Planning Director ,. ,
Date: November 19, 2010
Subject: Release of Mountain View Plaza Performance Bond
I am recommending that we release/extinguish the $3,237,362.50 performance
bond for Mountain View Plaza phases 1 and 2 dated July 20, 2001. I have
made this determination based on the research below:
On May 2, 2001 the city approved a Planned Unit Development zoning
classification for Mountain View Plaza. At that time the PUD section of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance required that when a PUD was approved, the
underlying owner/ applicant was required to bond for all public improvements
associated with the PUD. As an attachment to the PUD Ordinance 1380, the
city did enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement dated May 2, 2001
with Pack and Company and Crosswell Development (Mountain View Plaza).
Section 2.10.F. of this PUD agreement required that all public infrastructure
associated with the PUD must be bonded for before the issuance of any
building or construction permit. Section 1.15 of that agreement went on to
describe the public infrastructure required to be bonded for. Finally, there was
an engineers' estimate (Exhibit D) for roughly $2.6 million attached to the PUD
agreement. Taking the engineers' estimate times the required 125% of
estimated work the bond amount of $3.2 million is arrived at.
Pack and Company and Crosswell at that point had an approved PUD. They
then proceeded to prepare a preliminary and final plat for development of the
overall Mountain View Plaza development. As part of the platting process very
specific engineering and design work was undertaken to develop the
infrastructure for the Mountain View Plaza. This culminated in a final plat
being approved by the city council in September 17, 2003. As part of the
planning office staff report, it was noted that all public infrastructure and
improvements were in place and approved. No performance bond or extra
subdivision improvements agreement was associated with the project.
In conclusion, the bond notation that the city has been holding is in fact the
interim bonding that was required by the approval of a PUD. The platting
process and filing of the final plat have since superseded the PUD bonding
requirement.
I consider the issue closed. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to
contact me.