01/02/01 Sorensen to Wilson/PUDCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
January 2, 2001
Narda Wilson
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5' Avenue East; Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Mountain View Plaza. PUD
Dear Narda:
I have reviewed the referral you have sent regarding the Mountain View Plaza PUD. As I
am sure you are aware, there is presently a PUD covering the proposed site which was passed
only a short time ago with a fair amount of controversy. The present PUD has key aspects which
are designed to serve the community in a unique way. I believe it is critical for this developer to
show that a truly first-rate development will occur if the current PUD is replaced with this
proposal, and that the community will benefit from the change.
It is difficult based solely on the materials presented to reach a judgment on the
appropriateness of this proposal, and ultimately, such a decision rests with the Council.
Nevertheless, I do have some concerns which need to be expressed. First and foremost, other
than an element of certainty as to what will take place on the property, there is very little about
the project which deviates from what the developer could do under simple B-2 zoning if he so
desired. If certainty is the community's primary benefit, there are some aspects which need to be
looked at with care.
There are eight phases spread out over the next eleven years, with a qualifier stating that
actual development will vary. While I am reasonably confident that the project will be completed,
it is always prudent to ask "what if' questions. For example, what if market conditions change in
four years and the project is left half completed or less? What if the first big box retailer builds its
store and development stops at that point? Would the community be satisfied with a project such
as that? I did notice that the phasing does call for certain steps to be taken which would help
provide the certainty we need, but I believe it is very important for this aspect to be looked at
closely throughout the review process.
Similarly, certainty also includes the architectural and aesthetic appearance of the
buildings. While an effort has been made by including a suggested list of materials and colors, a
suggested list has no real effect. There is no way to enforce a suggested list since it is not
mandatory. I do not see a problem with having a variety of available materials and colors, but I
do feel that a specific list is preferable to a suggested list. If more leeway is absolutely necessary,
it may be possible to allow materials similar to, but not included on, a specific list if approved by
the Site Development Review Committee.
There were also a handful of more specific concerns. First, the permitted uses allowed in
the PUD need to be well defined in order to allow consistent enforcement. The proposal includes
some good language, but contains qualifiers have been inserted which should not be in there:
"These specific uses are for conceptual purposes only and are not limiting the uses permitted in
the Plaza.." The proposed language leaves the potential uses wide open. Also, the Council has
expressed concern about the spread of casinos, and we should consider expressly excluding
casinos from the PUD.
Second, there are floating footprints in which the size of one building may be increased or
decreased by 10% as long as the overall footprint of all of the development remains the same.
While I feel that the concept is appropriate, I believe it is a good idea to add a clause which allows
such a change only if the change does not significantly impact parking or traffic flow and makes
the change subject to approval by Site Review.
Third, the signage plan calls for two large freestanding signs. The size of the signs are
rather large, and, from what I can tell from the site plan, may significantly exceed the generally
applicable maximum size and height requirements contained in the sign ordinance. If the signs are
located 51 feet or more from the right-of-way, the general height requirement of the ordinance is
satisfied. With a comprehensive sign plan and a location 51 feet from the right-of-way, the
ordinance would generally allow 250 square feet (the proposal calls for 270). The final location
of the signs as they are designed will need to be subject to clear vision triangle requirements to
ensure traffic visibility. I have used the term "generally" because, absent specific language to the
contrary in the PUD, allowable signs within a PUD are very restricted under the sign ordinance.
The figures used above are based on general commercial districts.
There are a number of other issues regarding signs. Previous discussions based sign area
calculations on the entire area as one property; the proposal calculates the sign area based on
eight individual lots (which would actually substantially reduce the amount of available sign area).
The plan, on its face, only allows freestanding signs. Wall signs are clearly contemplated, and I
would imagine that canopy signs also would be contemplated. The plan should be cleaned up to
more clearly include those types of signs.
While I have attempted to be as complete as possible with my comments, other issues may
or may not arise as the review process moves forward. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
J Sorensen
Zoning Administrator