Loading...
CorrespondenceJuly 1, 2010 Kalispell City Council 201 1 "Avenue East PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 RE: Willow Creek Dear Council Member: Last week you were given an application to amend the Willow Creek PUD that was approved by the City Council in December of 2007. Over the last three years, a number of engineerinj� challenges as well as requirements from the t, - C, city staff have prompted us to rethink some of the design features of this project. As a result, I feel that we have been able to maintain the personality of the PUD, while at the same time addressing the engineering concerns and the staff requirements that have been brought to light. C� C, As a matter of course, we were provided a copy of both the staff report and proposed conditions of approval that were approved by the planning board. While I agree that many of the comments and conditions in the staff report C, are reasonable and appropriate, there are others which I feel should be looked at closely prior to them being imposed on this project. The conditions which we have concerns are as follow: Condition 5: Corner lots under 6,000 square feet in size shall have a minimum lot width at the front lot line of 45 feet for detached single family lots and 35 feet for townhouse lots. During, to the review process, we were asked to demonstrate how a home could be built on these comer lots. Included in your binder you will find an illustration of how this can be accomplished. With that in mind we were puzzled by this condition. When we consulted with the planning office we were told that this condition was being placed on the PUD because of a concern that there would not be enough room on these lots for dry utilities (gas, power, phone, and cable) to be installed in the side yard of these lots. My discussions with Hathead Electric Cooperative and Northwestern Energy indicate that in most if not all cases dry utilities will not need to be installed in these side yards, and if they were needed the likelihood that they would ever need to be serviced by excavation is so remote as to not be a concern. However, if the Council believes that this continues to be a concern I feel that a condition that addresses the dry utilities directly would be more appropriate. This condition as written would require that at least 10 lots be removed from the PUD with no reduction in the cost of constructing, the project. This burden could be reduced or avoided by either removing this condition or amending it to address dry utilities directly. It is also worth mentioning that the approved plan for Willow Creek has comer lots of this type and no condition of this type was imposed on that plan. Condition 19: Lots 413 and 414 shall be removed and the corner of Park E surrounded by lots 422-430 shall be modified to incorporate the land in the surrounding lots. The southern access trail to Duxbury Loop shall be moved east between lots 429 and 430. The revised park design shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the final plat of phase 2. This condition, like condition 5 above, requires that lots be subtracted from the project without a real benefit to the project. This condition seems arbitrary, and I fail to see how it would substantially improve the project. These lots need not be removed to make the park area they abut usable or accessible. I have been given little justification for this condition even though it will deduct two lots from the total of the project without providing for any cost savings. Revenue losses like this and those required by condition 5 seriously impact the viability of a project designed to provide workforce housing, to Kalispell. Z, Condition 21: The park areas shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with an approved plan by the Parks and Recreation Department pursuant to the following phasing plan: A. Phase 1 - Provide a cash in lieu payment to be held by the city until park E is improved and dedicated. B. Phase 2 — Dedicate and improve park E C. Phase 4 — Dedicate and improve park C. In addition, the streets surrounding park C, Suffolk Way and Van Ness Drive, will need to be constructed. D. Phase 6 —Dedicate and improve park A. Condition 22: The trail system shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plan by the Parks and Recreation Department pursuant to the following phasing plan: A. Phase I — Construct the trail along the subdivisions entire length of Foys Lake Road and connect 2� to sidewalks at the intersection of Foys Lake Road and the alternate truck route. B. Phase 3 — Construct a portion of the trail in park B from the existing trail along Foys Lake Road north to connect with the trail planned for the south side of Ashley Creek in the MDT right-of- way. C. Phase 5 — Construct the entire length of the trail shown in park A. D. Phase 6 — Complete the trail within park B. These two conditions deal with the same issue and I would like to address them together. Since the outset of this project, there have been conditions imposed to front load the costs of the project. I feel that this is entirely inappropriate. The subdivision regulations require that each phase of a project stand on its own. This is done so that if a project is not completed past phases will not be burdened by unrealized promises of the future. However, these two conditions go far beyond this. They require that parkland and bike paths be dedicated, improved and constructed for lots that are not scheduled to be built for years. Park E alone will satisfy the parkland requirement for the first 227 lots of the subdivision. This threshold will not be crossed until phase 6 is platted in the late summer of 2013. Condition 21 requires that ALL of the parkland be dedicated and improved by this time. The same can be said for the bike paths that are proposed throughout the project. These paths were volunteered by us to create an amenity for the homeowners of Willow Creek, as well as the community as a whole. Frankly, I find the idea of a condition dictating when an amenity that is not required to be in the project is to be constructed to be a bit of a reach. This is further complicated by the fact that condition 22 requires that paths be constructed in areas that will have significant construction, excavation and grading taking, place after the paths are constructed. The idea of an amenity is lost in the idea that a bike path would be going through a construction zone, not to mention the inherent safety risks that arise from mixing pedestrians and construction equipment. Our proposal, which is outlined in the phasing narrative, does not vary greatly from conditions 21 and 22. But, our t, C, proposal is based on the idea that the parkland, open space, and bike/pedestrian paths should be constructed in the phase which they are in. If sufficient parkland is not available in a phase, some sort ol'bondino, should be put into place to insure that future homeowners are not taken advantage of. Condition 28: The developer shall provide a plan for construction crossing and temporary trail closure for the city, county and MDT to review and approve. The plan will need to include the following: A. Timeframes of when construction equipment will be crossing the trail and when and for how long the trail is expected to be closed for the street construction at ally given time as well as a trail relocation program B. Signs and sign locations notifying trail users of construction equipment crossing the trail and temporary closure of the trail C. A maintenance plan for the trail to address damage and dirt/debris removal caused by equipment crossing the trail D. Bonding provisions to address damage and clean up of the trail and provide for funds to finish the trail reconstruction at the street crossing This plan shall be approved prior to final plat approval of phase 1. I do not object to this condition. However, I would like to make the council aware that since the path in question is owned, regulated, and maintained by Flathead County it is my intention to post the required bond with the county and provide the City of Kalispell a letter indicating that the bond was posted. Condition 48: Prior to the final plat of phase 1, 2 and 3 Foys Lake Road, along the particular phase's frontage, shall be upgraded to urban collector standards. The improvements shall include widening the roadway from the center line of the roadway north, deceleration and acceleration lanes for the two street intersections as required, installing street lights and street trees in addition to the landscaping proposed within the open space areas adjacent to the road. The 10-foot wide meandering bike/pedestrian path shall provide the pedestrian access normally provided by a 5-foot sidewalk. All improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department and Montana Department of Transportation. (Traffic Impact Study and Findings of Fact Section D) In my opinion this condition is extra -regulatory. There is no regulation that I am aware of that requires that C, z:1 developers to widen, curb, rebuild or otherwise improve existing roadways adjacent to subdivisions. The reaulations state only that a Traffic Impact Study should be done, and that any mitigation measures recommended by the TIS should be implemented. This ensures that developments will not place undue traffic impacts on the community and that transportation infrastructure will continue to function despite an increase in traffic. In short, the TIS and its recommendations insure that growth pays for growth. To make sure that this is case our TIS will be continually updated throughout the project. However, to place a condition on a development that specifically requires that a specific off site improvement be made that is not in the TIS is extra -regulatory and inappropriate. When I asked the Public Works Department why this condition was being added to the requirements of the TIS I was told that it was because of the City of Kalispell Transportation Plan. We then began to study this plan to understand why it recommended mitigation when all the evidence contained in the TIS showed that it was not justified. What we found was that the data used in the transportation plan is critically flawed and over estimates the traffic on Foys Lake Road by more than double of what actually exists. A condition like this would also be unprecedented in the City of Kalispell. I have reviewed several of the approvals for large sub -divisions over the last 5 years. In none of them did I find any condition relating to traffic other than to comply with the recommendations of a TIS. While it might be a good idea to widen and add curbs to Foys Lake C, Road, it just is not appropriate to place this burden on a single development. Condition 62: The water rights allocated to the developer, both surface and ground for the entire 140 acre subdivision site, shall be transferred to the city with the filing of the first phase of the subdivision to insure the orderly accounting of water rights and to protect the future water needs of the city of Kalispell for it users. (Findings of Fact Section E) Montana has always been a state where water rights have been of great importance. So much so that the legislature saw fit to implement a law that outlines how water rights are to be dealt with in the event a property is subdivided. The law directs that the water rights of a property to be subdivided shall either be severed from the property and maintained by the developer, or that they be given to a homeowners' association for the subdivision. Requiring that I transfer my water rights to the City of Kalispell as a condition of a subdivision not only violates the road map laid out by the legislature, but is also an unlawful taking, of my property. In 2007 1 was asked what we planned to do with the water rights allocated to the property. I advised the planning office that it was my intention to sever the water rights from the property and move them to another property. When Willow Creek was approved this condition was placed on it. I opposed it then and now appeal to the council to remove it from this staff report. Finally, conditions 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, 55, and 56 all deal with parks and open spaces in Willow Creek. These conditions require that an improvements plan for these areas be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department. While I certainly do not object to doing this, these conditions write Parks and Recreation a blank check to require any improvement, whether the cost of that improvement is reasonable or not. Specifically, condition 12 requires that a landscape plan be submitted for the open space along Foys Lake Road. I understand very well that the aesthetics along, Foys Lake Road are very important both to the success of this project and to the City as a whole. This is why in the landscape plan section of your binder I have submitted a plan to address this. Admittedly, this plan was modified durine, the review process to address concerns that the planning board had, but those concerns have been addressed. I think this plan meets and exceeds the requirements of condition 12, yet the condition remains in the staff report and opens the door for more demands to be made. Condition 25 requires that a landscape and irrigation plan for all of the open space be submitted to parks and recreation. Again, I do not object to doing this, only that there is no limit to what parks and recreation can ask for. In the submittal binder there are detailed plans for landscape improvements to the open space. I encourage you to take a look at it and ask that it be approved as part of the PUD approval. If, in your riiind, there are deficiencies in the plans that have been submitted I would ask that conditions be placed on the PUD Lhat address the deficiencies be put in place of granting city staff unlimited authority to require excessive improvements. Condition 55 requires that a letter be obtained from parks and recreation be obtained approving a street tree and boulevard landscape plan. I do not understand why this condition is necessary either. A detailed street tree plan is included in the application materials (see landscape plan page LA-1.8). If this plan is lacking in some way please let C, me know. Otherwise I request that it be approved as part of the PUD. In total, there are 12 conditions in the staff report that deal with parks and open space issues. While some of these conditions are to be expected, many of them are not. I feel that the materials included in the application materials, as modified by the review process, effectively deal with these issues. If the subn�ritted plans are found to be insufficient, I would ask that the council employ a more targeted approach to modifying them rather than the broad strokes that are painted by the current conditions. The open ended nature of the conditions as written opens the door for excessive demands that may not have been the original intent of the condition. Z' I will be attending the council meeting on July 6th to advocate for this project and will be available to answer any questions you might have at that time. If you would like to speak to me about these or any other issues before then please do not hesitate to call me anytime at 261-0728. Your consideration of these issues is appreciated. Sincerely, Hubert Turner President Trigon, Inc. Wme To Bollskad 145 Granite Hill Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone 406 755 6845 Fax 406 755 0550 E-mail: wtb@bresnan.net Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy, Mayor Council Members and Planning Board 312 1" Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Mayor Kennedy; I would first like to congratulate you for not being tricked by the original "STALKING HORSE" development plan as originally proposed by the developers of Willow Glen. The original proposal in excess of 711+ mixed use units on the 140 acre site plus using the ever present buzz words of "affordable housing" was a trick to get you and the planned board to ultimately approve a higher density than logic would dictate! This stallbing horse approach seem to be evident from the developers continuing proposals. First 711 units, then 710, 690 and now 580. Be assured the developer has a finite number of units he considers feasible and anything over that number is a bonus. You should not get into this trap! Decide on the maximum density(number of units) tell the developer this is the number and for him to go back and redesign the project to this acceptable density. This project should be a well conceived residential project., not mixed useage! The project will be a visible project, from highway Z as people approach from the west and should be appealing, not just a "sea of roofs" 777gl Wme To Belstal 145 Granite Hill Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone 406 755 6845 Fox 406 755 0550 E-mail: wtb@bresnan.net Wme To Bellsbad 145 Granite Hill Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone 406 755 6845 Fax 406 755 0550 E-mail: wtb@bre5nan.net Kalispell should not be a party to a poorly conceived project that could take many years to absorb into the local environment. During that time of absorption, looking much like a high density, ghost town. Any approval should require: • Less density 300 -350 units • Wide streets, parking for guests • No mixed useage-no industrial/mini-storage. • A redesigned development, bigger lots • Well designed traffic flow to access streets into Kalispell • Some type of a "sound wall" to insulate the development from the proposed truck bypass. • Stop lights at intersections to city/county access roads at the developers expense -with a bond to insure the installatio:ts. Payment and performance bond/set aside letters to assure the development is COMPLETED. Be assured any reference to "affordable homes" is a smoke screen. Houses cost what they cost, construction/clevelopernent costs in the Flathead Valley far exceeds those costs elsewhere in the Western United States, density will have little impact on the ultimate house prices. A requirement for affordable housing can not be enforced and will never occur. What has been approved, should never impact the approval for this project. This is what is called an "infill" project impacting all the existing which surrounds it. This project must be well conceived to merge with the surrounding environment not in conflict, nor an eyesore.