Loading...
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