Tab 01. Cover letter from Ken KalvigKALVIG & LEDUC, P.C.
JOHN B. DUDis
BRUCE A.FREDRICKSON*
KEN A. KALVIG
MARSHALL MURRAY
(Retired)
Kalispell Planning Board
City of Kalispell
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Southfield Tower
1830 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301
Kalispell, MT 59901
March 11, 2013
Our Client: Montana Venture Partners, LLC
Re: GardnerNW 2-Lot PUD Zoning Application
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
P.O. Box 1678
KALISPELL, MT 59903
PHONE: 406-257-6001
FAx: 406-257-6082
ALL ATTORNEYS LICENSED IN MT
ALSO LICENSED IN NORTH DAKOTA
Via Hand Delivery
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on behalf of my client, Montana Venture
Partners, LLC (MVP), regarding the above -referenced project. My client's interest in this
application is two -fold.
First, MVP made a substantial investment of approximately $4,000,000 to increase the size
of sewer and water lines and related infrastructure south of Cemetery Road approximately 7-8
years ago. MVP did this in conjunction with its own development further south, Old School
Station, and in partnership with the City of Kalispell. To encourage development and annexation
south of Cemetery Road, the City of Kalispell desired to see the water and sewer infrastructure
upsized so it had capacity to serve future growth. The City lacked funding to pay for the upsizing,
so MVP agreed to pay for it so long as it would be reimbursed through the collection of latecomer
fees when the area south of Kalispell developed and began using the City's facilities.
The subject property and the entire 80+ acres in the Gardner PUD is in the area intended to
be served by the upsized water and sewer infrastructure installed by MVP. MVP naturally
expected to see plans for the GardnerNW property to connect to the Old School Station lines and
pay latecomer fees, but MVP has learned in speaking with City administration and applicant
principals that efforts are underway to avoid payment of the latecomer fees. When my client
turned to the PUD application to learn more about the plans for water and sewer service to the
subject site, it was very surprised to learn that no plans were provided and nobody at the City
Planning Office seemed to have any information about the applicant's thinking, other than thought
March 11, 2013
Page 2 of 2
was being given to development of a regional wastewater lift station that would serve the
remainder of the Gardner property, the Anderson property to the east, and property to the north. It
is MVP understanding this regional lift station would be designed and installed with the intent of
trying to avoid paying the latecomer fees on the sewer line upsized by Old School Station.
The second interest and concern my client has with this application springs from the fact so
little information was provided with the PUD application. As stated above, my client sought to
review the application materials to learn more about the plans for handling water and wastewater,
but could find no information. My client quickly discovered information was lacking on several
subjects required to be addressed in a PUD. Although Kalispell's zoning regulations were
changed a few years ago establishing the concept of a PUD Placeholder, the new zoning
regulations do not excuse the gross lack of information before you and for the public to review.
The application and planning staff response to it represent a seismic shift from how PUD planning
was done just a few short years ago. The application does not meet the regulatory standards and
conditions of your zoning code and approval of it will almost certainly be overturned by a court of
law.
The materials submitted with this letter provide background about the significance of the
installation of the Old School Station water and sewer infrastructure and upsizing thereof to
development south of Cemetery Road and elsewhere and how that relates to the subject property
and overall Gardner PUD. I also offer critique and analysis of the 2-lot PUD application and how
it does not comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance or the Kalispell Growth Policy. I also
provide a letter from Sitescape Associates who offers an opinion on the PUD submittal and
Kalispell's response, thus far, to it. Finally, I provide examples of other recent PUD submittals
which are similar in acreage and zoning classification to the overall Gardner PUD.
I hope you will consider these materials carefully. I will be at the public hearing and will
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
r 1f
4� r
Ken A. Kalvig
ken@kalviglaw.com
cc: Montana Venture Partners, LLC
Enc. Bound written comments and other material submitted as public comment for March 12,
2013 public hearing on GardnerNW 2-Lot PUD Zoning Application
H:Vv Montana Venture Partners\Gardner PW\Correspondence\Kalispell Planning Board 3-11-13.doc