Tab 09. May 13, 2008 Planned Unit Development Staff Report KZTA-07-4ACITY OF KALISPELL - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT #KZTA-07-4A
MAY 13, 2008
This is a report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for a text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to revise
the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance. A public hearing was held
before the planning board on October 9, 2007. The planning board forwarded a
recommendation to approve a series of amendments to the PUD section of the zoning
ordinance. At a council workshop in November, and subsequent city council action,
the PUD revisions were sent back to staff for consideration of a series of issues
raised by the public. Those issues have been addressed and revisions have been
proposed. A new public hearing before the planning board is now scheduled for May
13, 2008 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning
Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Kalispell is proposing to amend the Planned Unit Development section of
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of updating standards and provisions
of this section, providing several different streamlined application processes based
on the scale and phasing of projects, improving the abandonment procedures,
strengthening the application submittal requirements and generally striving to
achieve a more user friendly document on the part of the staff and the public.
A. Petitioner: James H. Patrick, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
(406) 758-7703
B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any area within the Kalispell zoning
jurisdiction could be affected by these proposed standards.
C. Proposed Amendments: Attached Exhibit A includes the modified PUD draft
ordinance. Note that this version contains strike outs (deleted language) and
underlines (added language) based on changes made since the previous public
hearing and council review in November, 2007. The essence of the proposed text
amendments made since the last public hearing are as follows:
1. Eliminating the requirement that a PUD be limited to a single owner or that it
be under single ownership and requiring all owners of the PUD to sign the
application or give a letter of support.
2. In November staff had proposed a full application PUD as has always been
provided in the PUD regulations as well as 2 other alternatives.
Page 1 of 5
The first was a placeholder PUD application which would bind an owner
to using the PUD process and label the property as a PUD but the owner
would not provide any application materials at this time nor could he
develop his property in any manner until a full PUD application was
submitted and approved. This provision has been maintained in this
draft.
The second provision was called a concept PUD application which would
allow an individual to submit a PUD with a conceptual road alignment,
densities, uses and park lands plan. This would allow master planning
of larger tracts of land without the problem of giving site specific designs
for every aspect of a development years in advance of when they will be
built. The applicant would have to provide a full PUD application for
each phase as the phases were developed. This concept was deleted at
the direction of the council.
3. Adding a planning board and council review criteria for assuring that there is
internal integrity of design in the PUD. This would include assuring that there
are good design features within the development including streets and street
design that fit with the proposed land uses, that there are transitions and
buffers between different densities and intensities of uses, that pedestrian
access has been accounted for, that signage, fencing and lighting is well
thought out, etc.
4. Defining what developable area is within a PUD and not allowing densities to be
based on undevelopable lands such as flood plains, wetlands, water bodies, BPA
power easements, etc.
5. Generally reducing the allowable residential density allowed outright for each
zone and then adding density incentives for affordable housing and additional
open space and developed parklands.
6. Allowing PUD's to occur in P-1 (public) zones.
D. Staff Discussion: The current PUD regulations were drafted in 1993 during a time
when PUD's were not being submitted to the city with any degree of regularity.
Today, 15 years later, it is the development method of choice. Unfortunately the
regulations have not been updated to reflect current development trends nor has
there been any recent attempts to improve its usability. Both staff and the public
have agreed on the need to bring the regulations up to date and in line with
current development and review procedures. Staff has held two work sessions with
the planning board prior to the planning board public hearing. In addition, the
document has been on the city web site for two months during this process and a
draft has been forwarded to the local engineering and surveying offices for
comment.
Page 2 of 5
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A.
Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized
criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A.
Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy?
The growth policy generally anticipates use of development standards that will
conserve and protect the quality of life of the citizens of its community.
Recommendation 13(fl states "Increase the use of the Planned Unit
Development zoning overlay process for mix -use development and other large or
complex land projects." The PUD standards being proposed are specifically
crafted to further this goal and recommendation thus the proposed amendment
will generally promote the goals and objectives of the growth policy plan.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The proposed PUD amendments will improve the efficiency with which PUD's
are administered and reviewed. PUD projects by their very nature are designed
to allow the local governments to mitigate the impacts of the particular
development proposed. Traffic flow, traffic generation, road carrying capacity
and intersection design are all key components of the PUD review process and
are being enhanced by the amendments proposed.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
The proposed amendments would allow the PUD application, review and
administration processes to flow much better for the city and for the
development community. The very nature of the PUD process ensures that
there would be no compromise with regard to public safety.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
The general health and welfare of the public will be promoted by creating a
more usable PUD process which will ensure that more complex projects have a
better opportunity to receive more thorough staff, planning board and council
review and at the same time offering the development community more options
with which to proceed.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
The PUD process allows for a much more specific and deliberate review process
and creates situations where individual issues can be identified that might limit
the provision of adequate light or air, shading, etc. The PUD also allows a
mechanism to mitigate negative issues when identified.
Page 3 of 5
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue
concentration of people?
The proposed changes include a recommendation to slightly reduce the
potential density allowed in various residential zones thus further preventing
the overcrowding of land and limiting the undue concentration of people. In
addition, the minimum amount of developed parkland and open space is being
defined to further limit the potential for overcrowding of sites.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,
water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
The amendments would assist in making the PUD process more desirable for
the development community. The PUD process as mentioned above creates a
greater opportunity for local government to identify areas of concern including
the inadequate provision of water, sewer, schools, parks or other public
improvements and at the same time creates the vehicle to require mitigation of
the negative impacts.
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The PUD standards by their very nature work to create and ensure
compatibility and suitability with the site by allowing a project to be designed
with the potentials and limitations of the site in immediate perspective.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The PUD amendments proposed and the PUD regulations themselves create a
review process whereby the development is crafted and portrayed in detail
before approvals are granted or construction proceeds. The process ensures
that the character of the district and the neighborhood be protected either
through good design and mitigation of negative impacts or the project would not
be approved.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The PUD amendments will allow the PUD process to proceed much smoother.
The purpose of the PUD process is to create a forum whereby impacts to
existing development is protected whether through good design or project
mitigation to ensure that the surrounding neighborhood remains vital. The
building values will be conserved by promoting and encouraging reasonable
standards within these districts. These amendments will conserve the value of
buildings.
Page 4 of 5
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the jurisdiction?
The most appropriate land uses throughout the jurisdiction are promoted by
encouraging reasonable design standards that promote the general well-being of
all citizens of the community. These changes will encourage a greater use of the
PUD process which will allow a forum for the planning and design of more
appropriate land uses throughout the planning jurisdiction.
Staff recommends t
report KZTA-07-4A
amendments to the
attached Exhibit A.
TJ
RECOMMENDATION
hat the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the findings in staff
and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed
Planned Unit Development standards be adopted as shown on
Page 5 of 5