Loading...
Hansz/Notes on Second Draft of PUD AgreementMEMORANDUM April 1, 1999 N To: Al Thelen, Interim City Manager Glen Neier, City Attorney From: Jim Hansz, Director of Public ork Subject: Waterford of Flathead Valley PUD Agreement, second draft I have reviewed the draft dated April 5, 1999, with respect to the issues discussed during the meeting of March 5, 1999 and earlier meetings with Jay Billmeyer, engineer for the applicant. Generally, the draft agreement is fairly specific on issues where the applicant expects the City to agree to specific items. The language regarding the obligations of Waterford remains somewhat vague in many areas. Also, when pressed in prior meetings for information to better specify and define Waterford's improvement obligations, the applicant's engineer has stressed that the City's subdivision rules would not require this at this time and therefore it is inappropriate to require it of Waterford for this application. At some point Waterford should be politely reminded that this is being reviewed as a PLTD, and that subdivision rules would be followed if the application were made under those rules. It also should be clear throughout the agreement that all of Waterford's public improvements will be subject to City review and approval and will be constructed in full conformance with City standards. My other comments, by pertinent section, follow and are on my attached mark-up. Also attached are review comments provided by Mike Baker. 3.01 Access: Plans presented at the meeting on March 29"' indicated that Waterford has relocated the crash gate at Summit Ridge to a location on the proposed Waterford Drive, as previously discussed. Summit Ridge Drive is listed to be improved by Waterford. Four Mile Drive is also listed to be improved by Waterford, but to match the existing level of improvement. Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758 This is contrary to discussions in which staff clearly indicated improvements would be required to Kalispell Local Street standards in conformance with Planning Board recommendations. This will include curb, gutter and sidewalk with a boulevard area behind the curb. Sidewalk improvements could be limited to one side of the street, depending on the location of the walkway identified in paragraph 3.06, subject to City Council concurrence. Additional notes are made on the draft mark-up that is attached. 3.02 Sewer, Water and Storin Water: See attached mark-up. Certain levels of improvement have been identified and could be clearly specified in the agreement. Required water line sizes have been identified through the Waterford modeling effort. A pressure booster station is required to ensure adequate fire flows are available. Up -sizing the 8-inch connector in Four Mile Drive to a 12-inch size is desirable and the City normally would fund this increased size when it is done at City request. The length of this loop connector could be reasonably estimated or shown on preliminary design plans. Sewer improvements within the development must be designed to City and State standards. Further specification of this is not necessary. Stonn water improvements are required by City policy to ensure that storm water flows from the developed property do not exceed pre -development levels. Follow-up data thus far presented does not identify the nature of these improvements, but does clearly indicate that mitigating facilities will be different from those outlined in preliminary presentations and will be located on neighboring property not owned by the applicant. The City may not authorize any off -site improvement that involves private property owned by others. Mitigation improvements must be better specified and any proposal for improvements off -site must be accompanied by documentation satisfactory to the City that such improvements are acceptable to the owner of the property where they would be located. This is somewhat different from discussions on March 5"' where staff was led to believe and drawings were clearly marked to show that the development and eventual ownership of these properties would very likely be by Waterford. Implicit in the Waterford request to retain a right to recover storm water facility costs is the probability that Waterford will not be the owner / developer of these affected properties. Waterford proposes that infrastructure located within the development remain as their property to be maintained by Waterford. Storm water facilities, necessary to mitigate Waterford's storm water run-off, that are located off -site must also remain as the ownership and maintenance responsibility of Waterford. Documentation ensuring the satisfactory performance of this obligation should be developed and submitted for approval by the City. Overall, the concept of private ownership of these facilities is not objectionable. Several examples of this exist within the City, Buffalo Stage and Buffalo Commons are two. However, all facilities must be installed, operated and maintained to City standards. Signage throughout the project should conforrn to current City standards. 3.04 Landscae Plan: Reviewed by Mike Baker, see attached. 3.05 Lighting Plan: See attached mark-up. Lighting should receive approval of the City and a plan of lighting improvements should be submitted and approved before construction. 3.06 Off Site Walkwgys: Reviewed by Mike Baker. The proposed location of this walkway should be subject to City review and approval. Coordination of this with sidewalks on Four Mile Drive is necessary to determine the need for regular concrete sidewalks on both sides of Four Mile Drive. 3.07 Fire SUpression and Access Plan: The City should review and approve the engineered fire suppression plan prior to construction as well as the access plan. 3.08 Sig : The City should review and approve this and other signage plans. 3.09 Traffic Stud : With the Waterford's tacit agreement to improve Four Mile Drive, the need for a traffic impact study is reduced. However, some mechanism for determining potential cost sharing of future traffic mitigation improvements may be necessary. Therefore, a future traffic study to establish the impacts of Waterford and the City recreation area and any new developments may be desirable. Please refer to the attached mark-up for changes of the present language of the draft. I cannot suggest proposed language regarding future cost sharing. me. The meaning of Waterford's reference to future changes to Four Mile Drive is unclear to Z., 7.01 Subdivision: From Section V of the draft forward, the paragraphs are numbered incorrectly. Waterford has consistently stressed that subdivision of the property is not intended. Their justification for a PUD was based on this premise so that they could avoid the requirements of the City's subdivision regulations. Therefore, I believe this section should clearly rule out any future subdivision of the property. Please refer to mark-up. 7.04 IWact Fees: This should be re -titled Utility Connection Fees. Waterford has ignored clear and unambiguous information provided by staff regarding the City's requirements with respect to utility connection fees. On March 5h the staff informed Mr. Billmeyer that City connection fees would be assessed on the basis of the number and size of connections in accordance with the present City fee schedule. These fees were estimated from plans dated 1-6- 99 that clearly showed individual connections for each structure. The fee estimate provided to Mr. Billmeyer was $307,551.00, but he was advised that the actual fees would be based on the sizes listed with building permit applications at the time permits are requested. The proposed fees in this draft are for a single "master meter" installation concept that was proposed by Mr. Billmeyer on the 51". At that time, Mr.Billmeyer was advised that the City might consider a master meter but the utility connection fees would be based on the sizes of individual connections as described. A master meter would be beneficial for determining the residential versus irrigation water use. This could be significant for Waterford with respect to their monthly sewer fees. Mr. Billmeyer indicated that the installation of individual meters would be inconsistent with the "all private" concept for the utilities. We disagree. Further, the City has concerns that failing to install all metering at the time of construction would present a major cost problem if future ownership changes resulted in an individual metering requirement for the various structures. The City should not pay these costs. Waterford's proposed language regarding subdivision of the property clearly suggests that Waterford is considering this future change. This underscores City concerns regarding subdivision and potential future cost to the City or subsequent owners for metering installations that should have been performed at the time of original construction. The City, as part of the connection fee, provides meters up to a 2-inch size. The language of any agreement should clearly specify connection fees as outlined. The City's preference is to have meters installed at the time of original construction, regardless of the ag,reement's language on whether the water facilities are public or private. The issue of master metering should be regarded as a convenience issue for Waterford to simplify their billing and to potentially reduce their monthly costs. Please refer to attached mark-up.