LettersApril 10, 2007
To: The Kalispell City Planning Board
Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned
Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include
the following:
1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards
for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), that requires specific information be
submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other
essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are
provided in the comments that are attached.
2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which
allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction
with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning
is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-2 with a PUD
is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10.
3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the
relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public
benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification
called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the
future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for
increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3
dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should
demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include
elements that:
° Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
° Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as
part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
1 See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications
Retain existing trees,
Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding.
d. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TA.0 committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application
is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the
development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that
the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an
over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding
for this by-pass exists!
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking andsignage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets.
6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD.
Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny
the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete
information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these
comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not
in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for
this development.
1.) Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents
required by the .Kalispell zoning regulations for a PUD application
Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District
(PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying
for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan
which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the
submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application
stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added)
2
Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division a 4 Miles North on Hwy 93
1vIarch 30, 2007
City of Kalispell Planning Depar-u-nent
iittn: Mr. Sean Conrad
17 Second Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Gentlemen:
Un Friday, March 16, 2007, I met with Mr. Sean Conrad regarding the PUD proposed by
Gateway Properties. During our discussion I emphasized that in no way is the Ponderosa Estates
TT Board connected with Gateway Properties in the development and construction of
the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development.
I.,ast summer gateway Properties briefly met with the Ponderosa Board and said that they
"might" buy propel adjacent to our development. They explained what they "might" build and
then went on their way. Some individuals on our board did express some concern regarding
water tables, 'lighting, streets, lot size, etc. But in no way did we make specific requests
-regarding anything Gateway Properties was contemplating. Therefore, the sentence in Section
Ea on page i of their PUB, i.e., "This complies with a request by the Ponderosa homeowner's
Board of Directors." does not apply.
I have discussed this with Mr. Brent Card of Gateway Properies Inc. and he has agreed that the
afore mentioned sentence was placed on their PUD in error. Please do not consider it in any of
your future deliberations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Elaine Crahan.
President
Ponderosa Estates homeowriers Board
Copy to:
Mrs. S'liaron Demeester
LvIr. Brent Card
April 5, 2007 WO L F O R D
Gateway Properties
Attn: Brent Card
P.O. Box 5776
Kalispell, MT 59904
Dear Mr. Card,
Thank you for meeting with us on your project located to the north of Glacier Town
Center. As we discussed, while I am not necessarily opposed to connecting to your
development and providing some access there are some concerns that I have with the
project.
I am not willing to have two connections north of my property. Two access points will
have a negative impact on my ability to sell these single family residential lots. In
addition, it would require an awkward configuration within my development. I would
also like to have you provide similar buffer to my property that I am providing you. I
have attached a current image of our planning effort to this letter that indicates the access
point that we are willing to provide you.
Since I am not planning to develop this section for some time, per our discussion, I will
expect that you will install the access road to meet my extension of Rose Crossing to City
standards. This should include a 60' ROW, curb and gutter, a 7' grass boulevard behind
curb line and a 6' walk on each side.
While I am not asking you to install the utilities in this section, I will wish to coordinate
with your contractor to stub utilities in this location with the contractor working on our
lifestyle center. We had not anticipated working in that area for a while but I do not wish
to have a temporary road running through my property nor a road that I have to damage
in the future to install utilities.
Good luck on your project and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
either myself or Wayne Freeman with CTA.
Best :Regards,
/ //✓7�
Bucky Wolford
Cc: Tom .IUe11tZ. City of Kalispell, Planning
Four Squares Business Center 1200 Mountain Creek R000, Suite 102 o Challanooga, Tennessee :37:105
423.874.0811 - FAX:423.874.0748
-
`�;,
t'i i 9 24a�
Stephen and Cheryl Wilson
348 Blue Spruce Lane
Kalispell, MT 59901
March 26, 2007
Kalispell City Planning Board
17 2° Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development
Dear Planning Board:
We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development
and are writing to express some of our concerns.
We have enclosed photos we took of the property being proposed for the development,
and you will find references to the. photos on the enclosed plot plan.
Photo #1 shows 2 red flags - the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the
property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary.
Photo #2 shows a red flag 20 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence.
Note the yellow stake warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3-cable electric transmission line
buried just north of the gas line.
Photo #3 shows the weeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to run across
the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm.
Photo #4 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo 43. In the mid 1990s water
flowed across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage problem in this
area.
We have many concerns about this proposed development, but the issues that immediately come
to mind are as follows:
1. Is the 20 foot wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development
adequate to accommodate both the buried. utilities and the walking path that the developers have
indicated will be along this corridor? In addition, there is only a ten foot set back requirement
on the back of the lots south of this corridor, which will add further congestion.
2. The "buffer zone" between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development
and Ponderosa Estates should be a minimum of 100 feet.
3. A public walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within
the proposed 20 foot designated park area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public
access in such close proximity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great
concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would create.
4. As shown in photos #3 and 94, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed.
Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues?
Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gam,
e�andteveWilson
� Ito f-0 �
Lu Pv C Jj
iJ k-Q -V 'Z� -TIZ� Silo -
-C �� G .-, -J, t,' �- C-7T- -C,
Y-Y7 T is G tx- ttc e� T t-u-T- -TH
AC, (-LL R-k-7� L-1-t R --lp � --
- E C- 7 S C-U)C-i
T u N L T L
T--- LL ---i fl --g-S-i P\ t-3 "T-, OP C) KNQE
C-- P-iE7C, i . "-- -
� G 3,Le)6 i\,) I's
tit zc C Ci G
J-3 �-S JQ E kP- S A-y-e A60 "L7- F- Z-(- N V-VC -STPd- 1 SS LL E-,S
Su-Cr-t A S WGu A i- L'Ti VA SL SNQkj-AG 1�GZ7C� 1- A S C- E:, a7v-t Sa- 3 Aa-z-
�9_3F- Coj"CE-�r�� t S Sit 79-44'P(C-
\j xuklz) c \,k Oj ff s-Scl
�Fk-ub
,f-e cz
\J
-fRF-
F::V'6Z_ L13 Ar CA'
L-A CZ-- -1
E t 2 P Ez-f-c- &-ri T-1 F-- k, - V-2,1-ET5
G f S i�rtS NN F-\/-CEL-LC- PLA Kj
-�E '�, L
AS, MVCH 'Ni- -j \j
U2- f), U A N� t� ,, c.A p ( I A,�� it \ 3T t)L AS �-, CrH 4k-,,ivt i, t ,
r�
S� i59--uls LL Es -,_ASS 'S (Cl U-
T-
April 10, 2007
To: The Kalispell City Planning Board
Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned
Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include
the following:
1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards
for Planned Unit Development District.(PUD), that requires specific information be
submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other
essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are
provided in the comments that are attached.
2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 FICA on annexation hearings which
allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction
with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning
is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-2 with a PUD
is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10.
3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the
relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public
benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification
called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the
future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for
increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3
dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should
demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include
elements that:
® Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
® Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
® Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
® Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
® Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as
part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
' See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications
Retain existing trees,
Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding.
4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application
is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the
development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that
the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an
over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding
for this by-pass exists!
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking and. signage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets.
6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD.
Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny
the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete
information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these
comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not
in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for
this development.
1.) Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents
required by the Kalispell zoning_ regulations for a PUD application
Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District
(PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying
for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan
which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the
submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application
.a
stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added)
2
The Valley Ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal
file does not include the subdivision documents required for application under Section
27.21.030 (5) page 66. A list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed
as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment
include: identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater
mapping, clarification of proposed ( but vague) "underground" storm water detention
facilities and issues of high ground water, lot and parkland layout that could be
problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the
source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the
potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval
for new appropriations in the basin. New city wells are proposed at the recently approved
Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this
development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning
board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to comment on this proposal. An
environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant
ground water issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD
application is incomplete and informed public comment and decision making can not take
place without this information provided.
Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents required
Section 27.21.030 (5)` page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District
(PUD):
"(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval
topographic map of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet
showing all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the
development;"
Comment: THE SUBMITTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS DIFFICULT TO READ AND
DOES NOT PROVIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE INFORMATION NEEDED INCLUDING
SLOPE INFORMA TION FOR LOTS 170-189 WHICH BACKINTO A STEEP
PONDEROSA TREE COVERED SLOPE AND LOTS 7-18 WHCH ARE INANAREA OF
HISTORIC DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. THE BUIDABLE AREA OF THESE LOTS IN
CONF ORIUANCE WITH SLOPE REGULATIONS AND NATURAL DRAINAGE AREAS
2 It is important to note that such information is not optional, but that the code say this information "shall
be" provided. 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to
designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application: The
land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing
district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the
city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information
required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a
schedule showing the times within each part will he filerd anrd rnn1 lPtPd shall algn he included in the
application.
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH MISSING SUBDIVISIONANALYSIS FOR
THESE LOTS. SINCE BOTH AREAS ARE TRANSITION AREAS BETWEEN VALLEY
RANCH AND PONDEROSA ESTATES THEY SHOULD BE REDESIGNED TO
PROVIDE LARGER BUFFER FROM THIS EXISTING SUBDIVISIONAND OF
THESE SENSITIVE AREAS. THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE
INCREASED FROM 20 FEET TO 100 FEET (SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE
PROPOSED BUFFER AREA BELOW)
(b). Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential uses
and structures within the area proposed to be developed and maximum height of
buildings or structure;
Comment: WHILE THE APPLICA TION NOTES THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR A
M4A7MUM OF 35FEET IN B UILDING HEIGHT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS AREAS
WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WOULD IMPACT VIEW SHEDS. THE STAFF
REPORT REFERENCES "EXCELLENT VIEWS OF THE VALLEYFLOOR AND
BEYOND " YET THE APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT FAIL TO IDENTIFY
AREAS WHERE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS MAYBE NEEDED TO RETAINIMPORTANT
VIEWSHEDS. JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL
PROPOSAL BYBUCKY WOLFORD LIMITS BUILDINGS ALONG HIGHWAY 93 TO
ONE STORY HA VE BEEN PROPOSED. A SIMILAR HEIGHT LIMITATION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON THE PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVIING CENTER THAT IS PROPOSED
TO FROUNTHIGHWAY93.
(c). Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic, parking; sewage.disposal; drainage;;
water supply; site perimeter treatment, and other. pertinent: site development: features;
Comment: THE APPLICATION ISLACKINGINNECESSARYDETAIL FOR ALL OF
THESE ISSUES.
PARKING —THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET
OVERNIGHT PARKING AND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGES AND TWO GUEST
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ON EACH LOT. NO DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED
TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ---A LIFT STATION IS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND SITED
WITHIN A PARK AREA. CREDIT FOR PARKLAND SHO ULD NOT BE PRO VIDED
FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFTSTATION.
DRAINAGE —NO INFORMA TION IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR EVAL UATION
THE PROPOSED STORMWA TER SYSTEM OF "UNDERGROUND TANKS". NO
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW STORM WA
GENRATED B Y STREETS WILL BE HANDELED AND IF C URB AND G UTTER WILL
BE USED TO DIRECT THIS WATER.
WATER SUPPLY NO INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS TO HOWA WATER SUPPLY
SYSTEM WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IF THIS INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW WELLS THAT HAVE EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AVAILABLE IN THE AREA
d
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE CAPASITY WELL..
SITE PERIMERTER TREATMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT SITE
DEVELOPMENT FEATURES —NO DETAIL PLANS HA VE BEEN PROVIDED. ALL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF
THE DEVELOPER AND A DEVELOPER APPOINTED COMMITTEE. THE PUD
SHOULD SET BASE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED. THE RETENTION
OF EXISTING TREES THAT BORDER, BUFFER, AND PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT
CHARACTER FOR THE PONDEROSA SUBDIVISION HAVE NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED.
(d). Elevation drawings which demonstrate visually the general architectural features of
each proposed building or architecturally distinct group or type of buildings and the site
perimeter treatment;
Comment: NO DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
(e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or unsubdivided land
and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land
adjacent thereto;
(f). An enumeration. of covenants in detail proposed to be made a part of the PUD and
shall be enforceable by the city council;
Comment: THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDES NO REVIEW OF THESE COVENANTS
AND THEIR ADEQUACY OR ENFORCABILITY B Y THE CITY. ANALYSIS IS NEEDED
TO DETERMINE IF THESE COVENENANTS COMPLY WITH 27.22.030 Design
Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE KALISPELL ZONING
REGULATIONS. THESE COVENANTS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY
ARE CALLED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DETAIL
ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE OF COMMONAREAS AS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHAT PARK AREAS WILL BE CITY PARKS AND WHAT WILL BE COMMON AREAS
MAINTAINED BYA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. IT IS NOT CLEAR IFA
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WILL EVER BE CREATED AND IF IT COULD HAVE
ANY VOTING POWER.
(g) A statement expressing the order in,which-the development shall .occur and estimated -
time for'completing the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time
schedule for starting and completing each phase of the development snail be provided
(emphasis added);
Comment: NO PHASING PLANIS PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT
COMPLIANT WITH THESE REGULATIONS TO SUGGEST, AS THE APPLICANT
HAS, THATAT SOME UNKNOWNFUTURE DATE AFTER ADEQUATE TRAFFIC
INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN BUILT BY DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH, THAT
5
THEN THEY WILL PROVIDE PHASING SCHEDULE. CITYREGULATIONS
CLEARLYREQUIRE THAT THIS SCHEDULE BE PROVIDED AND COMMITTED TO
AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
(h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct
responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the
operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly
shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the Planned Unit
Development, and in such instance, legal assurances shall be provided which show that
the private organization is.self-perpetuating and adequately funded to accomplish its
purposes. Real property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed
as levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district;
Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (fl ABOVE. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PROVIDED TO NOT PROVIDE FOR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO OR CONTROL
BYPROPERTY OWNERS. LEGAL ASSURANCES ARE NOT CLEAR.
(i). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are not dedicated to
the public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at
a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Common:
facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private
organization and at no expense to any governmental unit;
Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (fl AND (h) above. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO
IDENTIFY WHICH FACILIES WILL BE COMMON AND WHICH WILL BE
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC THUS THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED.
0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a
manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that
fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties
contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area;
Comment: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT STREETS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WHAT WILL
BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY.
(k). The off-street.parking'to be provided shall meet them inirimum'standards for off-street
parking as per Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance;
Comment: THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET
OVERNIGHTPARKING AND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGES AND TWO GUEST
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACHLOT. NO DOCUMENTATIONIS PROVIDED
TO SHO W IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT COMPLIES WITH _KALISPELL ZONING
ORDIANCES. THE STAFF REPORT NOTES POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH
PARKING UNDER ITS REVIEW OF THE P UD EVAL UATION CRITERIA #S NOTING
PROBLEMS WITH SETBACKS FOR GARAGES AND PARKING BLOCKING
��
SIDEWALKS OR ALLEY AREAS. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE RECOMMENDED
"SIDE LOADED "GARAGE DESIGN ADDRESSES ALL THESE ISSUES
(1). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements
of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act;
Comment: AS NOTED EARLIER REQUIRED SUBDIVISION DOCUMENTATION WAS
NOT PROVIDED.
(m). The city council shall require 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; and,
Comment: NO CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO ESTABLISH THE
REQUIRED BONDING.
(n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city
council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts.
Comment: GVEN THE RECENT REPORT ON THE KALISPELL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN THAT INDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRANSPORTATIONISSUES IN
THIS AREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA,
THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL FINIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE MADE BY THIS STUD YAND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE
CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE
PROPOSED PUD.
2.) Annexation hearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed
method of annexation for Valley Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76-2-303
MCA3 which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in
3 76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws - hearing and notice. (1)
The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which
regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts.are determined, established, enforced, and
changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2).
(2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in
relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an
opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be
published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality-
(3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in
conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal
zoning regulations for the annexed property:
.(i) authorize Iand uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;
(ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county
Cviiunissivn-s yr the bivard of-Justment pursuant iv part i or 2 of +uiis chapter; or
(iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to
chapter 1 of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in 6-2-304(3), for the annexed property.
conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the
proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property:
(1) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;"
The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not
comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG-10. Under state law a separate
hearing on annexation must be held prior to consideration of rezoning. This request for
initial zoning and annexation should be rejected and the legally required separate hearing
on annexation should be held first.
3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space.
The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from
relaxed standards or increased density.
76-3-103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter
clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit
development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters,
industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned
mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open
space and community facilities in common ownership or use.
From the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Definitions'- Page 193, (169). Planned Unit
Development. A tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is
unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and
density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations.
From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD): A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks,
shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses
built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community
facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting
or density, in exchange for improved overall site design.
Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that
request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having
great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested
(b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning
notice and public hearing for a proposed annexation.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re -en. Sec. 5305.4, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-2704; amd.
0 ,... / nL 'l1 7 T 1007. .7 0„„ 1 nL 2cc r 1nnn. r,,,. 2n 01, -o� T loon- a eo,, c �w a� T
JGG. 1, Lill. G1 /, L. i]7 i, QlAlll. JGG• 1, l�il. J✓J, L. ll]], JGG. 34 Ch JVL, L. /JJ, alliA. Jt+G. ✓, Vll. V /, L.
2003_
N
here public benefits should be demonstrated and required. We are proposing that the
following public benefits be assured:
® Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and Iots 7-18 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
• Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
® Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
® Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
i Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as
part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
® Retain existing trees,
® Address areas of high ground. water and seasonal flooding.
4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations.
The PUD application is premature and should be denied as demonstrated by it failure to
meet the following PUD requirements:
A) 27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD).
(1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in an area where public and
private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the
development reaches the stage where they will be required.
There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south
and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is
available assure adequate public facilities.
lB) 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to
designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city.
(1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning
commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district
or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The
application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information
E
required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in
increments, a schedule showing the time within each part will be filed and
completed, shall also be included in the application. (emphasis added)
Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus this
PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure
adequate public facilities
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below.
27.21.020 (7). Limitation on Rezoning. The zoning commission shall not initiate
any amendment to the zoning ordinance or Official Map concerning the property
involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development
as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit
Development and proceeding in accordance with the time requirements imposed therein.
From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under
Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official is authorized to issue
appropriate permits complying with approved plan.
6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD.
This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD
regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval.
10
r— r
O J
�= C
")
2
C-1 G ^
G
to V �
U
'
v
��
ca
cn3
�o
>ca
Ln
C
la, M (N
C
OD
C
u
G
a� -" U 4-. " U -0 ca 0
j p .-:
.� i" .-.
O O G-'i
�+, Li.. N
"�
cn
cV 1
'O C
y
°tt�
3
I • =
Q.)p rl r
> cs >
ca ,-
... .. �., cc
O M
1�•'
.2
O
,U^
'a
N
r4b0
C
CD
c
E-
:� a- G1
Gn'
ct
'? C, CU c3 c'
QJ
^-4r _�
di
...
cc
O
cn
f.
G
n v?
� o tr
cs
c a>
o an o
>
c
U
ri U
to
I o II
cc
a C y o
a ss
e�
c� o
•"
.^
ONto
b O
T,aj
a COD -C
O
U
cr
G
c
c6 .,
t
N C. r r U
N
'2 _NCZD
cC7.
N
fa.
.II N
c,
^ J v ' =
^
O cs
a
°-
J
's
^�_
rr .r^J• .''-U
�"'+ U
U
J
r
U
J
U
n
p O
_77CO
Z
^ ^;
J
.G
rA
zz
In
zz
o_7E_
—
T--t
_
_
-
n
Jj
� ...dam+...-.
o