Loading...
Tab 32. March 26, 2013 Memo from Sean Conrad to Planning BoardPlanning Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/nlannina REPORT TO: Kalispell Planning Board FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner SUBJECT Gardner PUD MEETING DATE: March 26, 2013 At your public hearing on March 12, 2013 Ken Kalvig of Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C., representing Montana Venture Partners presented you with a binder of information which included a cover letter from Mr. Kalvig (tab 1), background of the Old School Station Water and Sewer Lines upsizing (tab 2-8), staff reports and minutes from the creation of the PUD placeholder concept (tabs 9-10), the Gardner annexation and initial zoning staff report and minutes from 2008 (tabs 11-12), the 2 lot PUD application in front of you now (tabs 13-20), a letter from landscape architect Bruce Lutz (tab 21), recent PUD staff reports including Hutton Ranch, Valley Ranch and Starling (tabs 22-24) and a story from the Daily Interlake concerning a latecomers agreement dated 2011 (tab 25). With the amount of information submitted at the hearing, the planning board tabled further discussion on the project until March 26th to allow time for the planning board to review and consider the information. The planning board asked staff to help them with the review process by providing comments on two specific areas, the authority of the board to enter into discussions or give oversight and direction concerning the latecomer's agreements and how this applies to Section F of the staff report concerning the proper provision of water and sewer services. Planning board authority or role relative to the late comer's agreement: The latecomer's agreement is an agreement between two private parties, the developer, Montana Venture Partners, who installed the water and/or sewer lines and then any developer/user needing water and/or sewer service from those lines. The city is responsible for ensuring that the terms of the latecomer's agreement are carried out. Specifically, the Kalispell Public Works Department will make sure the agreed upon fees between the developer and user of the water/sewer line are collected and reimbursed to the developer of the water/sewer line. Neither the city or the public works department are given the responsibility in the agreement to enforce actual hookup to the latecomer agreement lines. Relationship of Section F of the staff report concerning provision of water and sewer as it relates to the latecomer's agreement: The planning board is charged with assuring that adequate provision for public water and sewer is made. In the staff report it is stated that water and sewer mains serve the site immediately adjacent to the properties and that these lines provide adequate capacity to meet the needs of the anticipated uses. You therefore have made assurance that these lots can physically be developed. There are many sound and creative ways to provide these services which could involve a wide variety of engineering solutions. Some are beneficial to the long term growth of the city, some are not. Determining the specific design of a sewer system is not the charge of the planning board. The public works department, in their interpretation of city policy and proper engineering techniques will determine that. Staff comments concerning the questions raised by Mr. Kalvig about the overall approach that the staff and planning board are taking relative to this PUD review: The vast majority of the information provided by Mr. Kalvig is generally historical staff reports, minutes and previously published information As you read the information please note that Mr. Kalvig highlights in yellow the comments or phrases of concern that he wishes to raise. There are 2 pieces of new information attached. Tab 1, the cover letter from Mr. Kalvig wherein he lists his concerns and tab 21, a letter from Bruce Lutz who states that the level of information provided for landscaping is significantly lacking. Staff would point out that the issue raised by Mr. Kalvig that the PUD process is flawed because there is such a lack of information in the PUD staff report and application is really a matter of scale. Staff explained at the March 12 planning board hearing that the PUD application you are reviewing includes two existing lots totaling 7.6 acres and zoned B-5 (Industrial -Business). The applicants have stated that an auto dealership will be located on one of the lots with the other lot accommodating another auto dealership or similar use. The purpose of the PUD overlay zoning placed on the two lots upon annexation was to provide, in part, a coordinated development pattern that reduces business costs and increases small business opportunities. To that end, for these two lots the planning staff is recommending a shared approach on Highway 93, similar landscaping and bike trail development along Highway 93 and improvements to Lower Valley Road. There is no subdivision of land occurring. Water and sewer abut the lots. Both lots have existing public access and comply with the existing zoning. The PUD examples provided in the binder under tabs 22 (Hutton Ranch Plaza), 23 (Valley Ranch), and 24 (Starling) were large scale development projects proposed on raw land that lacked all forms of public services and utilities. Consequently, the PUD review and associated subdivision review were very in- depth. Additionally, the entitlements awarded to the PUD developers were much more specific. A breakdown of the scope of each of the listed projects is as follows: • Hutton Ranch Plaza — The PUD permitted the construction of a commercial center that is located on 46 acres of farmland and allows the development of approximately 450,000 square feet of mixed retail, restaurants, specialty stores, a movie theater and hotel. With the completion of the Walmart store and soon to be completed Hilton Homewood Suites hotel the Hutton Ranch Plaza is largely built out. Valley Ranch — The proposed PUD permits a variety of residential uses on the 80.7 acre project site which was previously farmland. Valley Ranch included 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and independent living facility. The assisted and independent living facility would be located in the northwest corner of the site, encompassing approximately 4.6 acres and, as stated in the application, will come back before the planning board and city council as an amendment to the PUD when the developers are ready to proceed with development of the facility. Starling — The Starling PUD project included approximately 640 acres and exists as a farm field. The city council approved the project permitting a mix of residential housing types along with commercial development on the site to be built out over 15 phases. The first phase includes a mix of single-family residential, townhouse, multi -family and commercial lots on 63.3 acres. Specifically, the first phase includes 99 single family lots, 98 townhouse lots, 7 lots designated as multi -family lots and 32 lots designated as commercial lots. The primary land use will be residential with the commercial component comprising of approximately 60 acres or 9% of the overall project site. The Starling PUD would allow upwards of 3,000 housing units when fully built out. The proposed PUD is obviously not of the same scope with regards to size of land or potential commercial square footage or existing availability of services and utilities. The PUD before you is more akin to the Hilton Hotel PUD, Eastside Brick PUD and Kalispell Regional Medical Center PUD. The planning board should also note that the PUD overlay zoning is still in place for the remaining lands on the east and south of the 7.6 acre PUD project you are currently reviewing. This mixing of a full PUD application and PUD overlay is permitted under section 27.19.020(2) which states in part, "Within any PUD application it is possible to incorporate one or both of the categories listed below: (a) PUD Full Application (b) P UD Placeholder Application " Recommendation: Move the project off the table for discussion and consider the planning department's recommendation to conditionally approve the PUD project.