Tab 19. Kalispell PUD Zoning Regulations with comments and analysisKALISPELL ZONING REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 27.19
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
Sections:
27.19.010: Intent. A planned unit development district shall serve as an overlay zoning district. It shall function in concert with one or more
of the underlying zones to provide a comprehensive. integrated development plan which will serve to modify the underlying zone and,
where appropriate, subdivision standards with the intent of providing flexibility of architectural design and density as well as providing the
option to mix land uses and densities while preserving and enhancing the integrity and environmental values of a area.
27.19.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit
developments in the city.
(1) Initiation of Application: The land owner(s) or designee(s) shall schedule a pre -application meeting with the planning
department prior to official submission of a PUD application. The PUD application shall be submitted on a form provided by the city.
Where multiple owners of the property or properties exist, all owners shall either sign the application or submit a letter of consent
authorizing submission of the PUD application.
(2) PUD Application Thresholds: It is anticipated that PUD applications will be submitted in one of two forms, a PUD full
application meeting all the requirements of this section and a PUD Placeholder application which serves as a place marker for a future PUD
application. Within any PUD application it is possible to incorporate one or both of the categories listed below:
(a) PUD Full Application — This application will be processed in accordance with the full provision of this chapter and
will require the submission of all application materials required in Section (3) PUD Application Materials below.
(b) PUD Placeholder Application — This submittal typically is involved with annexation and initial zoning or a
rezoning in which the applicant requests a PUD designation noting the applicant's intent to develop a PUD and enter into a development
agreement with the city, binding the property to a future PUD application but not providing any application materials or development plan
nor receiving any entitlements other than a commitment between the city and the applicant that if development is to proceed it will be done
via the PUD process. Prior to development of the PUD the applicant would proceed using the full PUD application process.
[NOTE: THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSES WHAT INFORMATION THE DEVELOPER IS SUPPOSED TO
PROVIDE IN THE PUD APPLICATION]
(3) PUD Application Materials. The full PUD application submittal ill contain the following information in the form of an
overall PUD development plan and supporting text:
(a) A listing of each deviation or class of deviation from the underlying zoning district and a justification of the
appropriateness for the deviation;
(b) A listing of each deviation or class of deviation from the city subdivision regulations design standards and a
justification of the appropriateness for the deviation;
(c) An existing topo map showing ;existing building and features and a proposed topo map showing proposed
topography using one to five foot intervals drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet Ishowing all proposed streets, lots, i
buildings, open space, wetlands, floodplain, environmental hazards, storm water facilities and other elements basic{ to the development;
(d) Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential, usesandstructureswithin_ the area
proposed to be developed and maximum height of buildings or structure) ;
(e) Proposed plans for handling:
1. Vehicular traffic;
2. Pedestrian traffic routes & trails including safe routes to school;
3. Sewage disposal; conceptual storm water drainage and water supply;
4. Parks and open space;
5. Parking;
6. Prominent landscaping, buffering, site perimeter and entrance treatment features;
7. Club houses, sales offices;
8. Retaining wall work in excess of 3 feet in height;
9. Common fencing designs and locations where proposed;
10. Commercial, directional and entrance signage;
11. Street lighting and parking lot lighting where applicably;
12. Any other pertinent site development features.
Comment [KVI]: Buildings do not
exist on the 2-lot PUD proposal, but they
currently exist in the overall PUD area.
Infonnation should be provided about
thctn.
Comment [KV2]: Infonnation is not
provided about some of this information --
neither for the overall PUD nor the 2-lot
PUD.
Comment [KV3]: No information is
given about buildings or uses outside the
2-lot PUD area. Three building locations
are shown on the two lots, but only
elevation information is provided for one.
The application references the possibility
of multiple stories.
Comment [KV4]: Plans are lacking
for both the 2-lot PUD and the overall
PUD. The staff report cites to a lack of a
landscape plan, pedestrian/bike path plan,
traffic analysis, storm water management
plan, and information about water and
sewer main extensions (see, Staff Report,
p. 17). This material is to be provided
with the application so it is part of the
public review process. It is not
appropriate to require this infomration
after the zoning has been approved but
before a building permit is issued —the
public is not involved in those processes.
The applicant has plans for a regional
sewage lift station that may serve the
remainder of the Gardner property, the
Anderson property to the east, and
possibly more. This idea is proposed as
an alternative to paying latecomer fees to
on the Old School Station infrastructure.
This is of great concern to the developer
of Old school Station, but there h t
Comment [KV5]: No signs package or
design guidelines provided; only
infonnation re: a twin -pole sign for VW.
No inforniation on lighting has been
provided. Applicants say Kalispell
regulations will be followed, but what is
the point of the PUD if every issue is
deferred to compliance with the regs?
(f) lElevation drawings which demonstrate visually the general architectural features of each proposed building or
architecturally distinct group or type of buildings and the site perimeter treatment] Note — This may be waived by the Zoning Administrator
on a case specific situation for uses listed below which may include but are not limited to:
1. Single family detached housing when the lots equal or exceed the minimum lot size of the underlying zone;
and
2. Two unit townhouse or duplex development which is alley loaded and the lots equal or exceed the minimum
lot size of the underlying zone.
(g) The PUD plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or un-subdivided land and the existing zoning of
the area proposed for the PUD overlay;
(h) A timeline expressing the order in which the development shall occur and estimated time for completing key
components or phases;
(i) Adequate provision for a homeowners association or other public or private management organization to provide for
the operation and maintenance of all private (non -governmental) common facilities including any private streets or alley ways, homeowners
parks, club houses, sales offices, open space, trails, recreational facilities and amenities, shared parking facilities, private lighting systems,
subdivision entrance signage and common mail receptacles;
- - -
0) Adequate provisions shall be made for maintenance of all public common facilities (e.g. a trail or park) which are
developed on public land, but intended to be maintained by a private organization or homeowners association;
(k) Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the application requirements of the Kalispell
Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act at the time the preliminary plat is submitted;
(1) For multi -phase projects to be developed over a long period of time or where project components are proposed
which may not be built for many years;
The first phase of development must comply with the full application process outlined above.
2. Each phase of a multi -phase PUD must be able to be free standing.
Comment [KV6]: Information is only
provided on one of three buildings. No
CCRs proposed to demonstrate
architectural featums.
Comment [KV7]: No timeline has
been proposed. No order of development
has been proposed. No estimated time
for completing key components or phases
has been proposed. The landowner
cannot just submit the first proposal and
say we don't know when the rest will fire
up. They have to address the
timeline/phase order for the entire PUD.
Phases are not discussed anywhere.
Comment [KV8]: There is no
information about how common facilities
will be maintained. There is a draft of a
shared access easement between the two
lots in the City's file, but it only covers
the very limited easement area. There is
no information indicating these two lots
will be part of an overall PUD
development subject to rules and
restrictions --they are a 2-lot island with
no provision of rules between themselves.
3. Each phase of a PUD shall not exceed the density provisions of the underlying zone as limited by the PUD.
Where a phase is proposed that complies with the overall PUD plan but the actual density of the particular
phase may exceed the average density allowed by the underlying zone and PUD agreement, the applicant
shall either provide the necessary corresponding open space or park facilities or suitably bond for them for
development in a latter phase.
4. uture phasor ni 'or develo ment com onents ma show conceptual street designs, proposed park and
density, housing types (single family, townhouse,
P > . Y, g YP = (, g Y,
eR etcs . aR -cqM erclal area$ versus G e e
Based on a finding and associated conditions placed on the PUD at time of approval, the applicant
may be required to provide more specific information prior to development of succeeding phases based on
one of the following processes: (Note: The planning staff, Planning Board or council, at their discretion, may
also request additional or more complete information relative to the future phases or components prior to
recommending or granting initial PUD approval).
a. A finding that the outstanding items are significant and therefore future phases or components should
follow the full PUD application process;
b. A finding that the outstanding items are generally minor and therefore future phases or components
should be reviewed under the conditional use permit process; or
C. A finding that the outstanding issues are insignificant and therefore future phases or components
should be subject to administrative review by the Kalispell Site Review Committee; or
d. A combination of the above provisions.
(m) Any other information, plans and details which the city staff, Planning Board and/or City Council may request to
fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts.
Comment [KV9]: None are even
shown. Although this regulation provides
some flexibility as to what the applicant
provides (conceptual vs. detailed),
something nwst be provided. The
Gardner PUD covers 80+ acres, but no
information is provided by the applicant
about over 90% orthe total PUD area.
The Kalispell Planning Board in 2008
expressed significant concern about this
very scenario when the idea orthe PUD
Placeholder was debated. What is being
proposed with the current PUD
application is what the planning board did
not want to see happen.
[NOTE: THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSES WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER WHEN
MAKING A RECOMMENDATION]
(4) Review of Application: Upon submission of the application the Zoning Commission shall review such application based on
the following:
(a) The compliance of the proposed PUD with the city growth policy and in particular the density and use policies of the
plan;
(b) The extent to which the PUD departs from the underlying zoning and the reasons why such departures are or are not
deemed to be in the public interest, and the mitigating conditions that the PUD provides to address the deviations;
(c) The extent to which the PUD departs from the subdivision regulations (if subdivision is anticipated) and the public
works standards for design and construction applicable to the subject property, the reasons why such departures are deemed to be in the
public interest, and the mitigating conditions that the PUD provides to address the deviations;
(d) The overall internal integrity of the PUD including the appropriate use of internal design elements, the use of buffers
between different land uses, the use of transitions between uses of greater and lesser intensity, the use of enhanced design features to
provide connectedness for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic throughout the PUD and the use of innovative and traditional design to foster
more livable neighborhoods;
(e) The nature and extent of the public parks and common open space in the PUD, the reliability of the proposal for
maintenance and conservation of these areas and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of the parks and open space in
terms of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the PUD;
(f) The ;manner in which the PUD plan makes adequate provision for public serviced., provides adequate control over
vehicular traffic and furthers the amenities of recreation and visual enjoyment;
(g) The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the PUD plan upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be
established in concert with the underlying zone;
Comment [KV10]: The Planning
Board, which is the Zoning Commission.
must review how the application
complies with all ofthe following, which
includes the entire zoning code.
Comment [KV11]: The 2-lot
Gardner/VW PUD proposal and the
overall PUD raises significant issues
when compared to the Kalispell Growth
Policy, especially the I lighway 93 South
Condor Growth Policy Amendment.
These issues are identified and discussed
elsewhere in materials submitted by
Montana Venture Partners.
Comment [KV12]: Noneofthese
things are addressed for the 2-lot PUD or
the 80 acre PUD.
Comment [KV13]: There is none
Comment [KV14]: Doesn't even
address its plans. Montana Venture
Partners has learned that this
development may not connect to the
water and sewer lines installed by it in
I lwy 93, but no inforniation has been
provided about the alternate plans to
handle sewer and water.
No traffic analysis done despite
proposing access to a major arterial (Hwy
93) and a minor arterial (Lower Valley
Road) at a difficult intersection.
(h) In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the jsufficiency of the terms and conditions
proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the PUD; and
(i) ;Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapte . ___ ____________--___
Comment [KV15]: (1) There is no
plan integrity;
(2) No terms and conditions are even
proposed;
(3) This is where CCRs come in
Comment [KV16]: The application
does not conform to the provisions of this
chapter on PUD zoning, as discussed
above. The application does not contain
critical information and analysis which
was EMuired to be submitted. It has been
tainted from the beginning.
M P O '.3'
O
W
0 P
N
N �' O � a� 12
C)
N
q 0 CD `CD N N
�O cOi'O'�
O O
�.�
O u
0 A
��p.
Oa
CD
0O�
'3 � � ID
6 rt
CD
s
O O _
CD CD
N O 4 O
CD u
CD W ¢'
n ~O• b
' CCDD n CD
0 CD O 't3
'. C O N O
giCn
CD O U4
CD
p.,
O �', p.
�-' o .•. ors'
C� cr 5 O -
Oro C N
CD
C O
(D
v
*
O
FGt
* sic
,..' CD •,.
O
�•
W • �'
CD vGi' p:
CD
��-h
; n
w
`� �* W CD
~' t3 c�`D
r o
o �j. as o
CDm CD
cD
o � �'
�.
CD ,_,••
o ¢
0,
CDa CDw
p 0- ,r
CD 0 t
-0 n W O
� � �' �•-n
o
cn 0
C •-• ass � o
CD
r+
0
p Ero
rL
¢
GO CD
m Un
a
�~
10 0
CD
cD n