Loading...
03/01/01 Hansz to Kukulski/PUD CommentsCity of Kalispell Post Offlce Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758 MEMORANDUM March 1, 2001 To: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Glen Neier, City Attorney From: Jim Hansz, Director of Public W Subject: Comments of Mountain View l Dick Amerman and I have the following comments on the draft agreement provided March 1, 2001. General: We recommend that throughout the PUD agreement each of the 31 conditions of approval be specifically identified by its individual number at the beginning of the section that deals with satisfying the condition. As example, if paragraph 2.03 A of the agreement deals with condition 24, then that paragraph should begin "2.03 (A) (Condition #24)." There may be several different paragraphs in the PUD that deal with a condition, this allows us to track it and determine that it is completely satisfied within the PUD. The exhibits should be provided so we can check that they are correct. Specific: Page l: Recommend the third "whereas" not indicate this is a "Commercial (B-2)" development. Recommend it simply state it to be a new "Mountain View Plaza. PUD," so that any future changes will come for Council approval rather than implying pre -approval of virtually any B-2 type of development. Just in case the Pack/Crosswell relationship terminates and the City is left with Pack & Co. Page 2: Definition 1.08, recommend saying "site plan approved for the ..." Page 3: Definition 1.15, recommend change to read as follows: Infrastructure and Improvements means all water, sewer and storm drainage systems that will be dedicated to the public and have been installed in accordance with the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications For Design And Construction. In addition, Infrastructure shall include those roads that will be dedicated to the City of Kalispell and are designed and constructed in accordance with the Montana Public Works Standards and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Said Infrastructure shall consist of the various public utilities and dedicated streets. Cost for said infrastructure shall be as shown on Engineer's Estimate, Infrastructure Improvements, Crosswell Development LLC PUD, Hwy 93 North, prepared by Thomas Dean & Hoskins Engineering, to be attached hereto as exhibit D after approval by the City. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, excluded from these terms are: building construction; parking lot paving; final landscaping in and around the buildings and parking lot(s); lighting; signage; and the utility service lines to each building. Page 4: Paragraphs 2.01(B)(1) & (3), parts (ii) appear in both and I believe this is confusing. Either the mains are completely extended to the subject property with Phase I or they are not. Inclusion of the same clause in paragraph (3) implies they are not completely extended to the subject property with completion of Phase I. Recommend deletion of (ii) from paragraph (3). Page 5: Paragraph 2.01(C), line nine, delete words "being on," and insert "in" so that line reads "for any structure in any portion of Area `B" or...". Also, line ten, insert "that all facilities on" so that sentence reads "It is agreed that all facilities on the Montana Department of Transportation Site will be removed..." Also, Paragraph (D), line five, change to read "screening roof mounted equipment..." Also Paragraph (E), change to add a reference to the approved listing of colors and materials mentioned elsewhere in this agreement. Also, Paragraph (F); add a reference that pledging the property as security is not acceptable to the City. Page 6: The word "completed" is missing from line 4 of sub -paragraph 1). Also, line eight of same paragraph, change "received" to receive. And in line 9, add comma after word "security," and delete word "to" that follows. Paragraph 2.02: This paragraph is attempting to absolve Pack and Crosswell from knowledge of hazardous materials on -site. Specifically in lines seven and eight, Pack appears to be attempting to deny knowledge or responsibility for its own activities on the site based on Crosswell's lack of prior use of the site. Page 7: Paragraph 2.02, continued, sub -paragraph 1 should read: 1. Prior to commencement of construction of infrastructure improvements, Crosswell Development LLC will submit to the City a letter of acceptance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality certifying that a level 1 environmental review has indicated there is no need for a Phase II environmental review of the site. If the results of the Phase I review indicate the need for a Phase II review, Crossweli Development LLC will submit to the City a letter of closure from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality certifying that all remedial actions have been identified and completed as required. Also, if paragraph 2.02 (2) is to be part of the agreement, then the City prior to executing the PUD agreement should receive the items in paragraph 2.02 (1). Without this data the City could have the developer leave and Pack remaining on its own to attempt to develop public infrastructure within a hazardous site. Page 7: Paragraph 2.03 (A), what is the exact meaning of the last sentence of this paragraph? I cannot determine what these "incidental activities" might be. Page 8: Paragraph 2.03 (D), Between line three and four insert, "The ratio of the length to the width of the proposed pad site shall not exceed 2:1 without prior consultation with and agreement by the City." Page 8: Paragraph 2.04 (A), this tells me that they can sell developed property with buildings to the building occupant, but does it also allow them to simply develop a commercial subdivision and sell off the lots without any other development? If so, then I think it needs to be reexamined because I don't believe this is what the City Council understands will happen. Page 9: Paragraph 2.07, who determines what is "reasonably necessary" for certifications by the City PWD? Page 9: Paragraph 3.02 (A) should refer to the Master Site Plan, not the "Site Plan." Page 10: Paragraph 3.02 (E) should be moved to 3.02 (B) as sub -paragraph (3) in order to ensure consistency with what is said in 3.02 (A). Page 10: Paragraph 3.02 (F) appears to be unnecessary because all roads in the development are private according to 3.03 (D). Page 11: Paragraph 3.03 (C) appears to be unnecessary because of 3.03 (A). If it is necessary, then recommend deletion of words "as necessary" from line number two and substitution of "to City of Kalispell Standards" to ensure consistency in document. Page 11: Paragraph 3.03 (D) (1), change the reference to "Site Plan" to "Master Site Plan" and recommend adding language that assures locations of sidewalks may be subject to change if there are any mutually agreed changes to the Master Site Plan. Page 11: Paragraph 3.04 (A), recommend changing lines four and five to read "sewer service shall be extended to the furthest boundary of the property..." Page 12: Paragraph 3.04 (B), change to read as follows: (B) Water service to the Subject Property shall be provided by means of an extension of an existing City -owned 12-inch diameter water main from its present terminus near FVCC on the east side of US Highway 93. This extended main shall be looped to provide dual direction of supply to the Subject Property in the event that this extended water main is temporarily out of service for repairs or maintenance. Said looping is to be accomplished by the further extension of the aforesaid water main across US Highway 93 to the west side and from there south to a point of connection with the nearest existing City owned water main of the same size, or such other point of connection as may be authorized by the City. Water mains extended to serve facilities within the Subject Property shall be looped in similar fashion to ensure the ability to supply water service in the event a water main is temporarily out of service for maintenance or repair. Page 12: Paragraph 3.04 (F), is it intended that the utilities remain private until the installation of all of them is complete (end of Phase III), only until each phase is completed, or until the development is complete? Paragraph 3.04 (G), recommend deletion of word "necessary." Who decides what is "necessary?" Paragraph 3.04 (H), Recommend inserting language that stipulates the minimum size, by state code, is 8-inch and this is required to be installed on a non- reimbursable basis. If modeling shows a larger size to be required to serve their development, then that becomes the non - reimbursable baseline size and we only cost -share for something larger. Further, their development is required to install and dedicate to us what is "required" to serve their development. Therefore, we do not support allowing developer extension agreements that allow them to extract reimbursements from neighbors who connect to a City -owned main at a later date. As example, if the Hutton property develops and it appears there is adequate capacity in the main to serve them without up sizing the main installed by Crosswell, too bad for Crosswell, they don't get to recover their development costs from the neighbor. If Crosswell wants to be first to develop this area, then there is a cost for this that should not be recoverable from their neighbors. Page 13: Paragraph 3.05, insert language that developer must meet all Federal Phase II storm water requirements when they are issued. They are a requirement for 2003, we know what they are, and our standards are being revised to account for this. Page 13: Paragraph 3.06, insert language that permit requirements will include hauling of materials to and from the site. Page 14: Paragraph 3.08 (B)(C)(D), recommend inserting somewhere in this section a reference to where the caliper of trees is measured. How far up the trunk from ground level? This influences the cost of trees. Page 15: Paragraph 3.08 (F), insert reference to correct exhibit showing landscaped areas. Page 15: Paragraph 3.08 (H), strongly recommend the appropriate exhibits be noted as to where the retaining walls are anticipated to be and their approximate height so that there is a baseline for discussion about deviations. The engineer has repeatedly identified specific areas along the southern access where walls higher than four feet may be needed, let's get this information on paper as a starting point. Page 16: Paragraph 4.01 (C), we have problems with the latecomer concept as it is applied here specifically and elsewhere in general. As mentioned regarding paragraph 3.04 (H), we do not support developer extension agreements that allow them to extract a reimbursement of the developer's legitimate costs from a neighbor. To restate our example, if the neighboring Hutton property develops and it appears there is adequate capacity in the main to serve them without up -sizing the main installed by Crosswell, too bad for Crosswell, they should not get to recover their development costs from the downstream neighbor. If Crosswell wants to be first to develop this area, then they must be willing to shoulder the cost and that cost should not be recoverable from their neighbors. Further, the cost must be the actualfull cost of meeting their needs in order to be consistent with the intent of the City's Extension of Services Plan. Administration of this concept in the past has been inconsistent and tended toward favoring the developer at the expense of neighboring property owners. It appears that the language of this paragraph is attempting to perpetuate this situation by extracting from neighboring parcels a portion of the basic development cost that should be paid entirely be Crosswell. In order to remedy this, we recommend a formula be established that identifies the absolute cost that should be paid by Crosswell for their development. This is missing from this section because of the apportioning of shares of the total cost based on square footage. The total cost must be adjusted downward by subtracting out the baseline Crosswell cost, whatever it may be. The remaining excess cost can then be appropriately recovered from those who use the facilities. In addition, once parcels have been sold within the Crosswell development, the right to recover costs remains with Crosswell when in fact it should transfer, proportionally, to each subsequent new owner, because Crosswell has recovered their costs via the sale proceeds. This section needs work. Page 17: Paragraph 5.01(B), somewhere in this section we recommend defijiing the term "minor modifications" or at least establishing some guiding principles for the Site Review Committee to make the determination.