05. Northwest Health Care PUD111,111 T*'9
FACTSHEET
EXISTING ZONING ................................................ RA-j/H-I/B-3
PROPOSED ZONING ...................................... RA- I MIXED USE PUD
PROJECT START-UP ...... .................................... NOVEMBER 1993
FORMAL APPLICATION TO CITY ............................. FEBRUARY 9,1995
UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING BOARD ......... MARCH 14,1995
TOTAL LAND AREA ................................................ 70.9 ACRES
RA-1 USE AREAS ..................... ......................... . . . 42.6 ACRES
COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS AREA ..................................... 10.6 ACRES
PARK/COMMON AREA .............................................. 8.3 ACRES
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA ............. ..................... ..... 9.4 ACRES
INWARD ORIENTATION OF USES ONTO AN INTERNAL ROADWAY SYSTEM
ENGINEERED WATER, SEWER & TRANSPORTATION DESIGNS BY PECCIA ENG.
PHASED DEVELOPMENT WITH IDENTIFIED INFRASTRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH COVENANTS
LAND USE RESTRICTIONS AND BULK & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS PER POD
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS
CENTRAL PARK WITH INTEGRATED COMMON AREA AND PAVED TRAIL SYSTEM
STRICT ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL
CITY PARTY TO COVENANTS
SUBDIVISION REVIEW TO FOLLOW
EUGENE THOMAS
733 3rd AVENUE EAST
KALISPELL, MT 59901
(I DO NOT OPPOSE ANY REGULATORY PROCESS OF INSPECTIONS I DO NOT
FEEL ANY ELECTRICIAN DOES!! THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION AND
PERMIT PROCESS IS A WORKABLE ONE AND THE STATE INSPECTORS HAVE
BEEN ( in the most part) FAIR TO WORK WITH.)
WHAT WILL BE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO BE HIRED?
WHO WILL DO THE PAPER WORK - WILL ANOTHER PERSON HAVE TO BE HIRED?
WHAT WILL BE THE TIME FRAME FOR GETTING THE PERMITS BACK?
WILL THERE BE AN APPEAL PROCESS IF WE DISAGREE WITH THE INSPECTOR?
WILL THERE BE A CLEAR MAP FURNISHED TO ALL ELECTRICIANS SO THEY KNOW
WHERE THE CITY BOUNDARIES ARE?
WILL THERE BE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT
WILL BE ISSUED?
WILL THE PLANS HAVE TO HAVE THE STAMP OF APPROVAL OF AN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEER?
IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AT TIMES NEED AN
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO WORK WITH THEM BUT WHEN THEY HAVE CALLED
ONE OF THE INSPECTORS THEY HAVE BEEN TOO BUSY TO COME ANY MASTER
ELECTRICIAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE CALLED FOR AN INSPECTION AS TO
STATUS OF WIRING. I, PERSONALLY, HAVE BEEN CALLED BY INSURANCE
COMPANIES, REALTORS, BUT NEVER BY A CITY DEPARTMENT FOR THIS.
WrOTHU,
TO: Councilman Dale Haar ---�IZ9
FROM: Michael and Alanna Ober
ffim#q�Y
We write this brief memo to express our opposition to KRH's
proposal to introduce COMMERCIAL outlets to their site north of
the hospital and east of highway 93.
We are residents of this neighborhood (54 Buffalo Hill Drive) and
are concerned that the Spread of commercial businesses like
motels, shops, eating establishments, etc. will dramatically
alter the neighborhood for the worse. We are also concerned that
the increase in traffic in the area of the hospital, because of
these establishments will cause delays, congestion, and pollution
in our neighborhood.
The hospital is correct to pursue the creation of zones adjacent
to its facilities. for medical offices and clinics and other
similar and compatible construction... just leave out the
commercial components.
Thanks for the opportunity to coiivnent and submit our. concerns.
+► M 110. t * -
Building Department
Brian J_Wood
Zoning Administrator
TO:
FROM:
Incorporated 1892
Bruce Williams, City Manager
Brian J. Wood, Zoning Administrator
April 24, 1995
Telephone (406) 758-7730
248 3rd Avenue East
PO Box 1997 -
Zip 59903
Fax (406) 758-7739
H4
RE: Buffalo Commons PUD - Outstanding Staff Concerns
The purpose of this memeo is to outline for you the remaining
concerns staff has regarding the Buffalo Commons PUD application.
These concerns, for the most part, have been expressed to the
applicant at every stage of the application process and were
brought to the attention of the planning board. Because the PUD
is, in essence, a contract between the city and the applicant, it
is in the best interest of both parties to have as complete a
document as possible. It will benefit all involved parties (the
city council, city staff, the applicant, and future property
owners and developers) if the adopted document is both concise
and comprehensive; the fewer the grey areas, the fewer the
headaches down the road. With that in mind:
1) There are a number of land uses allowed outright in the PUD
that require Conditional Use Permits elsewhere in the city. These
include: tri-plex, four-plex, bed and breakfast, community
residential facility, hospital, heliport and telecommunications
company with appurtenant transmission equipment. While the tri-
and four-plexes are reasonable and expected uses with minimal
impact, the other uses are, in staff's opinion, extraordinary,
and warrant the review afforded by the CUP process. Additionally,
the surrounding property owners (current and future) deserve to
be notified and to be given the chance to comment on uses with
inherent potential impact such as a community residential
facility (1225 2nd Avenue East group home as an example), a
telecommunication transmission tower, a hospital or a heliport.
2) Although staff has been opposed to the idea of a 50-room
hotel/motel at the northerly entry to the city, and cannot
understand its relevance within a "neighborhood" commercial
development, it seems clear that it will become part of the
requested PUD. It is staff's recommendation that the operation of
the facility be left up to the hospital; if they choose to
allocate a certain number of rooms within the facility to
hospital -related individuals, so be it. The zoning administrator
does not have the resources to monitor the operation of a motel,
and anticipates an enforcement nightmare, as all other innkeepers
in the city are going to expect strict compliance with any
agreement reached between the city and the hospital.
3) Staff has reservations about a few of the permitted uses
within the Retail/Commercial/Office pod. Two of the listed uses,
title company and investment firms, are not generally considered
"neighborhood" commercial uses, and staff recommends their
removal. Also, with an entire pod, some 33+ acres, dedicated to
"Professional Medical" facilities, is it necessary to include
medical clinics, dental clinics and physician offices in the
Retail/Medical/Office pod?
4) The applicant's consultant agreed this morning to provide
specific sign standards for the PUD. As of this writing, they had
not been received. In the absence of such standards, Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance standards applicable to the underlying RA-1
zoning will apply to the PUD. These strict standards (RA-1) are
not in the applicant's best interest.
5) Development standards within each of the Pods address only the
primary building on any given lot. Staff had recommended that the
application, by reference, incorporate the accessory use
standards of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (27.22.020). The
applicant's attorney opposed the suggestion, their consultant
seemed agreeable; I'm not sure where they stand on the issue.
6) Staff would have preferred that the applicant comply with
Section 27.21.030(5)(m) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and
provide "bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure
that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed
in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time
schedule." This, however, is not the case. If the applicant and
the Public Works department clearly understand the infrastructure
needs of each of the pods, regardless of the phasing sequence,
and the city attorney is comfortable with any agreement assigning
responsibility for the construction of the infrastructure, staff
will reluctantly concede this point. It is very important to
remember that the city is entering this agreement with the
applicant, but once the property is sold we will be dealing with
a new set of players.
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 i Avenue East - ;. !' 1 1i. 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
April 11, 1995
Phone: (406) 758-5780
Fax: (406) 758-5781
Bruce Williams, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RE: Buffalo Commons - Zone Change and Planned Unit Development
Dear Bruce:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular
session on Tuesday, march 14, 1995. During that meeting the Board heard the
following request:
A request by Northwest Healthcare for a zone change from H-1, B-3 and
RA-1 to a Residential Mixed Use, Planned Unit Development in the RA-1
zone. The intent of the PUD is to provide a zoning district classification
which may provide flexibility of architectural design and mixing of land
uses while preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental values of
an area. This classification also sets forth a time frame for improvements
to be installed, types of uses permitted, lot sizes, landscaping, street
layout. The project, consisting of approximately 70 acres, is located
between US Highway 93 on the west and Grandview Drive on the east,
Sunnyview Lane and Heritage Way on the south, and Indian Trail Road
subdivision on the north, and is more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
(map) of the staff report.
John Parsons of the FRDO referred to a memo submitted to Board members with
a recommendation to continue this matter until the April meeting to allow time for
the City Attorney to review the terms and conditions of the plan. The Board
discussed that since the public hearing had been advertised, they would proceed
with the case as scheduled.
Parsons gave a detailed presentation of report #KPUD-95-1 outlining staff's
concerns and given the importance of this project, staff, again, recommended that
the public hearing be continued until those concerns can be adequately
addressed.
The public hearing was opened. Two representatives for Northwest Healthcare
gave a detailed account of the proposal, pointing out the tremendous amount of
effort that went into the plan, and stated that they are committed to a quality
project. The presentation was extensive, addressing in detail, the entire area to
be included in the PUD; the application was reflected in a comprehensive, spiral
bound outline of the uses planned, the architectural concepts, the infrastructure
and the built-in guarantees for the project. The application represented a
professional, detailed approach to an area which has presented a challenge to the
community as a whole for compatible and useful development. The technical
assistant for the applicant, felt that the staff report was too negative and failed
to acknowledge any of the good aspects of the PUD.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
Bruce Williams, City Manger
Re: Buffalo Commons PUD
April 11, 1995
Page 2
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, testified that the City was fully supportive of
the project, however several unresolved issues prompted the City to support
staff's recommendation for continuance of the matter until reveiwed by the City
Attorney. The primary concern of the City representative was that a bond was
not included with the application. The Board determined that the City Attorney
had received the' application materials at the same time as all the other interested
agencies and Planning Board members, but had not reviewed the matter and was
out of town at the time of the meeting.
Three persons spoke in oppostion to the project, objecting to the hospital, as a
non-profit organization, getting involved with the commercial hotel business that
will compete with local businesses. One citizen, speaking for herself and many
of the personnel at the hospital, expressed concern with the hospital becoming a
huge corporation that no longer serves the public welfare.
The Board debated whether or not to continue the public hearing. The issues
raised by staff were addressed by the legal counsel for Northwest Healthcare.
The consensus of the Board was to close the public hearing, forward a
recommendation and not delay this matter for 30 days, since City Council will
ultimately have to address the concerns with bonding.
Considerable discussion followed amongst the applicants, city and county staff and
Board members. The Planning Board perceived the issue of bonding to be one
controlled exclusively by the City Council. The applicable regulations make it
clear that the amount of the bond is set by the City Council, thus, the Planning
Board has no jurisdiction to even consider the bond. If FRDO and City staff felt
the application was incomplete without a bond (to be set by City Council) then the
Board believes it was incumbent on staff not to set the application for public
hearing and then recommend continuance based on the lack of a bond.
The Board went through the findings of fact and incorporated findings as
submitted by Northwest Healthcare. The motion to grant the rezone of the
properties as requested by Northwest Healthcare to be known as Buffalo Commons
PUD, and adopting the findings of fact as modified by Board discussion was
passed on a 7-0 vote in favor.
The Board's recommended findings of fact follows as Attachment A.
This recommendation is being forwarded to the City Council for final action.
Council needs to wait for the minutes of the planning board meeting prior to
taking action, however this does not preclude discussion at Council workshop.
Bruce Williams, City Manager
Re: Buffalo Commons PUD
April 119 1995
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding the request, please contact the Commission
or FRDO staff.
Respectfully Submitted,
KALI PELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/eo
Attachments: Attachment A
FRDO Staff Report #KPUD95-1
Application Materials
Minutes of 3/14/95 Board Meeting (To be sent under separate
cover)
c: David Greer
Montana Planning Consultants
P.O. Box 7607
Kalispell, MT 59904
Northwest Healthcare
310 Sunnyview Lane
Kalispell, MT 59901
Glen Neier, City Attorney
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
TRANS MIT\KPU D93-I.REC
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
BUFFALO COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT
BY
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 14, 1995
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76-2-303,
M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the
criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A.
Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently
designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum density of 40 dwelling units
per acre, with some "Medical" to the southwest, and "Urban Residential" near the
highway. The proposed Mixed Use RA-1 PUD concept is considered in compliance
with the Master Plan.
Is The Requested Zone Designed To Lessen Congestion In The Streets And To
Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks
And Other Public Requirements? ^
This finding cannot be made. Congestion in the street is caused by an
overburden on the street of traffic. The requested PUD zone without financial
guarantees, as required by Ordinance, may cause undue congestion. This because
traffic generation is a function of the intensity of uses that are allowed within
a given area and access to that area. While the applicant has submitted a plan
on paper that appears to be adequate, the applicant will not be the developer, so
without those required financial guarantees for improvements this finding cannot
be made. Generally the PUD concept is considered one of the better methods for
dealing with the provisions of this section. Staff considers the Residential Mixed
Use RA-1 PUD as an excellent method for developing this property.
Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And Other Dangers?
The development of this project would secure from fire, panic, and other dangers
if safeguards are designed into the proposal. While each phase is generally
designed to stand on its own, complete safeguards would require the funding
necessary to ensure their installation.
Development within this zone is subject to development standards including: lot
coverage, maximum building height, and the provision of off-street parking.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General Welfare?
The purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and
welfare and does so by implementing the City -County Master Plan. The Master
Plan generally would support the requested PUD. Designation of this area as
Residential Mixed Use RA-1 PUD would serve the Flathead region with additional
residential, medical, and commercial development. In addition, this area has
direct access to a major highway making it a good location for medically related
uses.
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all
zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any
changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest.
Additionally, other review mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is
in compliance with all applicable safety codes.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate LiKht And Air?
The RA-1 PUD proposal will provide an integrated system of open spaces and
landscape amenities throughout all land use "pods". The proposed density of
development is believed to be substantially less than permitted by the PUD
regulations or by the underlying zoning district. Please, also, conuslt the PUD
Narritive Supplement included with the application.
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowdink- of Land?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the
environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed
with. Adequate infrastructure is in place or can be provided at the time of
development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue _ Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone.
The proposed zone change would not increase residential density in the area.
Infrastructure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed change.
The zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in this
zone. An undue concentration of people would result if the property is developed
at a level which exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity of the
land which would not happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is
properly developed.
_Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The
Property For Particular Uses?
The subject site is well suited for uses permitted within the proposed Residential
Mixed Use RA-1 PUD. The property appears to be of adequate size and adequate
access to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of
This District?
The proposed PUD is designed to be compatible with the medical community and
with the surrounding residential land uses. The PUD design includes a
transitional land use theme as extending from the area of Grandview Drive to US
Hwy 93. Land use density and intensity of uses increases in that direction. With
few exeptions, the proposed uses would normally be compatible to RA-1, H-1, R-3,
and B-1 zoning districts.
The property is ideal for the intended uses due to its location, size, and
compatibility with nearby land uses. Nearly 50% of the property is reserved for
office or medical -related uses. Open space treatments and locational
considerations provide for a logical blending of residential and samll retail uses
with the medical land uses. Adequate public services are also readily avilable to
serve the intended uses.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
The proposed uses are intended to complement the character of the surrounding
properties and be built in a regulated fashion to insure excellence in design and
function. The quality of the proposed PUD, as measured by the transportation
system, extensive landscaping, provision of open space, architectural control, and
scale of development are all positive elements that should add to the value of this
and adjoining properties.
Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land
Throughout The Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the Kalispell City -
County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning
ordinance generally identifies this area for this type of concept.
F:\...\TRANS MIT\1995\KP U D95-I.BU F
BUFFALO COMMONS
. i i # CHANCE REQUEST
CITYKALISPELL
i T , REPORT
STAFF
MARCH 7, .•
Northwest Healthcare has petitioned to amend the Official Zoning Map of the City
of Kalispell. The request is to rezone from RA-1, B-3, and H-1 to Residential Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development in the RA-1 zone. The zone change request is
subject to a public hearing before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and
Zoning Commission on March 14,1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 312-1st
Avenue East.
lk i 11111 41 1 A #
A Residential Mixed Use Planned Unit Development zoning classification is defined
by the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as:
It is the intent of this chapter to provide a zoning district classification
which may provide flexibility of architectural design and mixing of
land uses while preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental
values of an area.
PETITIONER/OWNER:
Northwest Healthcare
310 Sunnyview Lane
Kalispell, MT 59901
SIZE AND LOCATION:
The properties are roughly 70 acres bounded on the east by Grandview Drive, on
the west by US Highway 93, on the north by Parkview Terrace Subdivision, and on
the south by Heritage Way and Sunnyview Lane. Access to this project would be
from Grandview Drive, US Highway 93, Heritage Way, and Sunnyview Lane. The
property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" (map).
ZONING AND LAND USE:
The subject properties are currently zoned H-1, RA-1, and B-3 and are mostly vacant.
The surrounding zones and land uses are as follows:
north City RA-1, R-3, and R-4 with residences;
south City H-1, with miscellaneous medical and residential uses;
east City RA-1 and R-3 with residences and County R-1 with
residences;
west City R-3 and R-4 with residences, church, and funeral home.
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76-2-303, M.G.A.
Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the criteria
described by 76-2-304, M.C.A.
Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently
designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum density of 40 dwelling units
per acre, with some "Medical" to the southwest, and "Urban Residential" near the
highway. The proposed Mixed Use RA-1 PUD concept is considered In compliance
with the Master Plan.
Is The Requested Zone Designed To Lessen Congestion in The Streets And To
Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation. Water, Sewer Schools Parks
And Other Public Requirements?
This finding cannot be made. Congestion in the street Is caused by an overburden
on the street of traffic. The requested PUD zone without financial guarantees, as
required by Ordinance, may cause undue congestion. This because traffic
generation Is a function of the intensity of uses that are allowed within a given
area and access to that area. While the applicant has submitted a plan on paper
that appears to be adequate, the applicant will not be the developer, so without
those required financial guarantees for improvements this finding cannot be made.
Generally the PUD concept Is considered one of the better methods for dealing
with the provisions of this section. Staff considers the Residential Mixed Use RA-1
PUD as an excellent method for developing this property.
However, a number of issues arise when analysis of the document is performed.
One issue that arises is the phasing schedule. Alternative phasing schedules are
proposed, the most significant Impact is if Phase 3 is developed first (as Indicated,
pg. 40) and the balance of the phases are abandoned then the Council would be
obligated to approve a commercial zone on the commercial portion. This on the
surface may not appear to be significant. But if a straight rezone had been
requested for commercial along the highway the request would be denied because
the Commercial Is not in conformance with the Master Plan without the PUD.
Financial guarantees that the PUD will be Installed as approved are required by
ordinance to alleviate this concern. This then brings forward another question,
that is of financial guarantees that all the improvements will be installed as
required by Section 27.21.030(5)(m). This Section states: "The city council shall
require bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required
improvements shall be satisfactorily completed In accordance to the approved
plans, specifications and time schedule." The representative of the applicant has
Indicated that this would be the responsibility of the developer (meaning future
and existing developers). This mere statement is not adequate to ensure
compliance with this section of the Ordinance. No proposal for bonding or the like
has been proposed to help alleviate this concern and comply with the Zoning
ordinance requirement.
2
Costs not accounted for include: the cost of the traffic signal at Northridge Drive
and US Highway 93, internal roads, curbs, gutter, sidewalks, water, sewer, power
y (infrastructure), park, and drainage improvements.
As a result of these concerns and those under the Discussion section, a finding
cannot be made that this project is designed to lessen congestion in the streets
and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools,
parks and other public requirements.
Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And Other Dangers?
The development of this project would secure from fire, panic, and other dangers
if safeguards are designed into the proposal. While each phase is generally
designed to stand on its own, complete safeguards would require the funding
necessary to ensure their installation. This was described above regarding
adequate infrastructure including safeguards regarding financial guarantees.
Development within this zone is subject to development standards including: lot
coverage, maximum building height, and the provision of off-street parking. These
will be discussed later.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General Welfare?
The purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and
welfare and does so by implementing the City -County Master Plan. The Master Plan
generally would support the requested PUD. Designation of this area as Residential
Mixed Use RA-1 PUD would serve the Flathead region with additional residential,
medical, and commercial development. In addition, this area has direct access to
a major highway making it a good location for medically related uses.
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all
zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any
changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest.
Additionally, other review mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is
in compliance with all applicable safety codes.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air?
Many of the proposed permitted uses listed in the document under Professional
Medical Facilities and under Multi -family would be required to obtain a Conditional
Use Permit if proposed under the RA-1 zone. This PUD concept would eliminate the
Conditional Use Permit and allow these uses to be constructed without benefit of
Planning Board or City Council review. While staff generally supports this concept,
concerns arise because of the lack of development control criteria regarding
parking, landscape, lot coverage, and building design. In addition, the controls for
height limitations (especially along the highway and the north boundary), setbacks,
and specific design standards for the structures themselves are lacking.
3
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding of Land.?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the
environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed
with. Adequate infrastructure is in place or can be provided at the time of
development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No
significant negative impact Is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone.
The proposed zone change would not increase residential density In the area.
Infrastructure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed change. The
zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in this zone.
An undue concentration of people would result If the property Is developed at a
level which exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity of the land
which would not happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is properly
developed.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The
Prove For Particular Uses?
The subject site is well suited for uses permitted within the proposed Residential
f Mixed Use RA-1 PUD. The property appears to be of adequate size and adequate
access to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This
District?
A set of criteria for staff to review applicability of the proposal is within Section
27.21.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Subsection (4)(e) Includes 10 Items for
Residential Mixed Use PUD. Items 2, 3, 5, and 7 relate to the mix of uses that may
be permitted and are stated as follows:
2). The predominant land use character of the district must be
residential;
3). The residential uses appropriate to a Mixed Use PUD In a residential
district are as permitted in a Residential PUD;
5). The combined area of all commercial uses cannot exceed thirty-five
percent (35%) including the area of all associated facilities, such as
parking;
7). industrial and noncompatible commercial uses are not permitted.
Commercial uses that may be permitted include all uses permitted or
conditionally permitted in B-1, B-2, and B-3 zones with the following
exceptions, which will not be permitted:
C
Automobile commercial parking enterprises; automobile sales;
automobile rental agency office; automobile service stations except
those with pump services only; boat sales; car washing and waxing in
conjunction with an automobile service station; food processing plant;
casinos; motels/hotels; plumbing and heating materials retail and
service; wholesale and "jobbing" establishments.
The proposal includes 21% "Retail Commercial/Office"; this would leave 14% of the
balance of the available area to non-residential types of uses. There Is no indication
as to how the "Professional/Medical Facilities" area would address this issue. As it
is proposed, an unlimited number of non-residential uses would be permitted
which could allow up to 68% of the area of the PUD to be non-residential in
character.
Included within the Professional Medical Facilities category is a subcategory called
"OUTPATIENT SUPPORT FACILITIES". The uses that are proposed include: Dining,
Entertainment, and Overnight accommodations. Staff does not feel that these uses
are "Professional Medical Facilities" nor are they residential in character.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
The subject request does have the potential to significantly impact the residential
properties to the north. Without substantial land development controls, and the
removal of the Conditional Use Permit approval requirement, it appears to be
impossible to make the finding that a 4-plex at 35 feet in height 20 foot from the
north property line would negatively impact the single family development to the
north.
Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land
Throughout The Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the Kalispell City -
County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning
ordinance generally identifies this area for this type of concept.
DISCUSSION
Listed below are a number of concerns staff has with the document submitted by
the applicant in general.
1. Northwest Healthcare does not appear to have a very high level of
commitment to the project because of their unwillingness to guarantee
improvements and that fact that they propose to sell off phases 1 through
4 prior to development.
2. A detailed index needs to be inserted for quick reference to discussion of
specified information
3. On the Map, remove any reference to abandoning Heritage Way.
5
A single set of Covenants covering the entire development should be
created to allow for all developers and property owners to know what will
be constructed throughout this development. included in this set of
covenants would be a map of the various areas.
S. On Page 11:
The retail commercial/office designation permits an unlimited
number of hosphotels;
a. Where In the "Retail Commercial" is the hosphotei proposed?
b. How Is this facility going to be managed to ensure whatever ratio is
approved, if it is approved, would be guaranteed/managed?
C. 35 feet is felt to be too tall with only a 25 foot setback from the
highway. Dr. Higgs' Conditional Use Permit required an additional
minimum setback.
d. Since Conditional Use Permits would not be required, a stronger set
of development standards needs to be created.
e. Single structure includes, in the commercial, 4 retail spaces - elevations
Indicate more spaces and only a single story, .35 feet is certainly in
excess of one (1) story. The sentence after the 4 retail structures
Indicates that "All other uses specifically listed above have no specific
size limitations..." The document needs clarification as to the
ramifications of that statement or remove it.
6. The PUD requires the predominant land use character of the district must be
residential. The PUD covers 69.8 acres. A breakdown of the proposed uses
Is:
a. Residential:
14.45 acres is Single Family Residential
6.95 acres Is multi Family Residential
21.40 acres total is residential which equals 30% of the land area
b. Commercial/Professional Medical Facilities:
15.27 acres is retail Commercial/Office
33.13 acres Is Professional Medical Facilities
48.4 acres is non-residential (Commercial) which equals 70%
C. The nature of this PUD appears to be commercial In character, not
residential with a 70-30 split between PUD categories.
0
d. _ The Professional Medical Facilities should have a ratio or other means
to govern the residential to commercial ratio to bring this PUD in
conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
7. Engineering:
a. Fire hydrants will be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire Chief.
b. All PUD/phases should be freestanding, including necessary facilities to
add additional phases.
C. Under roads: utilities should be stubbed out to future roads phases
and included primary stubs for future subdivisions.
8. - Page 17:
a. Drainage should be retained onsite, french drains have been shown
not to work. If the parkland is to be used as retention areas (as
proposed) it cannot be used as park.
b. Sidewalks include boulevard street trees. No sidewalks adjacent to the
streets;
9. Page 20:
a. Table 4 indicates projections based on intensity. Limitations should be
placed in this PUD land use section to coincide with this table. The
Single Family homes are indicated at 34 units. In addition, this type of
development needs to be indicated as detached single family.
10. Page 21:
a. No waivers for sidewalks should be entertained.
11. Elevations:
a. "Small Wall Sign". How big is "small"? Generally, the signage section
lacks limitations. In. addition, the commercial enterprises will want
Highway signag ow will this be accommodated.
12. Page 22:
a. "Architectural review authority" When will it be created?
13. Elevations:
a. How much standing do these have with regard to actual building
construction/design?
FJ
b. When subdividing the Individual phases the developer will install
sidewalks, curb, gutter, retention areas, street trees not otherwise
Installed by Northwest Healthcare. If the Commercial Is not subdivided
the developer will Install the above.
14. Page 28:
a. open spaces/parks - property ownership - City will not accept these
parks in fulfillment of parkland requirement. They are for the benefit
and use of these subdivisions and their residents and not for the
general good of the City`s Residents. Cash In - lieu will be required.
15. Page 29:
a. Any bike lanes need to be coordinated with the city's Parks
Department.
16. Page 30:
a. See above - cash in lieu.
b. Common areas 1-5 are not labeled on maps contained in the
document all maps referenced in the document need to be reduced
and included in the document.
17. Page 31:
a. Trees - The City is willing to accept this In written request form each
respective year during budget time for council review and approval.
The planting and species selection will conform to the City standards
and be approved by the Director of Parks and recreation.
b. All landscaping is required to be irrigated.
C. Responsibility for bike lane signing needs to be decided upon. Consult
with Public Works.
18. Page 38:
a. Formally abandon all lot lines and parcel lines to create this five phase
development.
�.� b. Subphasing of the five should not occur.
C. Again - all phases are to be freestanding developments, improvements
to be coordinated.
d. Bonding, SID or other form of funding needs to be created to ensure
Improvements.
8
19. Phasing:
a. r Y` No subdivision proposal has been submitted. One should be to
_coincide with the approval of any Phased PUD. This would seem to
facilitate development in the future.
b. In order to maintain the integrity of the phasing plan. no subphasing
should be permitted.
20. Page 39:
a. Who pays for the signal at US Highway 93 and when. Who determines
the 3000 ADT threshold has been met?
b. Rough grading of entire road system will create mud bogs and
blowing dust, the NW Healthcare needs to bond for improvements
C. What happens if future phases do not come on line? What is the
outcome of this PUD? Zoning needs to be proposed that would be
consistent with the existing Master Plan if the phasing schedule is
approved and then the PUD is abandoned.
21. Page 40:
a. SCENARIO - Phase 3 is developed first and a portion or the balance of
the PUD is abandoned. The regulations would require that Phase 3 be
zoned Commercial which is not in conformance with the Master Plan
if the PUD is abandoned. This puts the City Council in a potion that
would require them to approve a zone change not in conformance
with the Master Plan. A solution to this needs to be worked out.
b. What happens under alternate phasing plan to the phase that is
displaced? Perhaps the Alternate Phasing plans should be eliminated
and the Commercial be Phase 5.
22. Phasing Plats - add roads to complete connections
23. Page 47:
a. Roads are to be constructed at 36' back of curb to back of curb for
residential streets. 40 feet back of curb to back of curb for collectors
which also need to be identified (the phasing plats indicate 42 feet).
For the Commissions' convenience staff has included the applicable PUD sections
of the Zoning Ordinance as Exhibit B attached.
Given the number of questions and concerns involving this document staff cannot
make a recommendation for approval and given the importance of this project a
denial should not be made.
0
It is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and zoning
Commission continue the Public Hearing to the April hearing for the requested
zone change so that the concerns of the City can be adequately addressed by the
applicant and their representative.
F:\...\KPUD95-1.NWH
M
'a XAA :.4
j ABC u as 7
.,• • . ci. °A 44 c i
2 X `' ' as 41 •+
♦ %wSy, `t -fir ' •sm
41
1i
f ; E A
s is it 92
t 14 f gt t7 • �q
��� F'L 4 i •qr ! 23
..-- T'" ` �.. ♦ 11 i A R =4 t� is •
P'S .� r 11.0 +•�hlE 0
Ott
LIE j
a ti•,.. l9Ci t%pti■ f*AD 0
;. jC ' all
i+ t ! �• ` I
° ! ° atl•�4
Fay++' � •: •::• :•::. ::::: ................ ar : •�
-;a-
i-
• N
• ,w f IV ♦. C
�1
f
*'
R 4
i d
4
t
�rQ 0
r
t
T
tAT
3.4
t
_ !p"!�. ..`
e•
'r
A
4
t
e . .. ::. ... ..::: r
r
a la
C"cw :::
_.s . e0 : `
t
i a
L 0 t
r
8
s •yy 'styy'• ; :•r
ii3
t
r a
w
f
4
s .: ,
i
;::
'a
RIY {,
s
M
T
L. a..
%::
gRID EVIEW
X.
:::....:. E.%:
4 ax �:: a+a•cr,c
xr to �: HERITAGE
s i+ r f y' Fe +• , tE
es w. u t ACE JFX.
be
Its &SO
f { 9 V020, L.A.M ,ia ` Mi! �IfC �i .t�•' ii Y e1 1
•,+: HERJTAGIr �. , : xt: nc.:•
t3 fit!k7 D HEALTH
.x +s CENTER l ttac£
ADO. 161
I AS
RESUS of 3
0 0 L D i S _T. R '1 S T .: SU.iMONS : W: :. :.; .{: '' ' 3
W ►.� T E.7F. I
T- E a w. , e t :%►;Ts:
ILA
Et
L442 r,W 7tu _. s4ti sr
-- • - .vi a! EXHIBIT n n a
EXHIBIT 8
��RDO STAFF REPORT #KPUD-95-1
27.21.010: Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a zoning
district classification which may provide flexibility of architectural design and
mixing of land uses while preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental
values of an area.
27.21.020: 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 shall submit an application
to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a
proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the
property into the city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan
containing the information required in Section 27.29.030(5). In cases Where the
development will be executed in increments, a schedule showing the time within
each part will be filed and completed, shall also be included in the application.
(2). Review of Application: Upon submission of the application and
preliminary plan, the zoning commission shall review such application and plan
based on the following:
(a). The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and
subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property,
including, but not limited to, density, bulk and use, and the reasons why
such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest;
(b). The nature and extent of the common open space in the
planned development project, the reliability of the proposals for
maintenance and conservation of the common open space and the
adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of the open space in
terms of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan;
(c). The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate
provision for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic
and further the amenities of light or air, recreation and visual enjoyment;
(d). The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned
development project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be
established;
(e). In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period
of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect
and maintain the integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after
consultation with the city attorney;
and maintain the Integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after
consultation with the city attorney;
(f). Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
(3). Action by the Zoning Commission. The zoning commission shall
review the plans and shall hold a public hearing on the application pursuant to
Section 27.30.030. Within thirty days after the public hearing, the zoning
commission shall submit its recommendations to the city council. The zoning
commission may recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without
modifications, or recommend disapproval. Such recommendations shall include:
(a). Lot area;
(b). Uses;
(c). Ratios of floor space to land area;
(d). Area In which structures may be built ("buildable area");
(e). Open space and landscaping;
(f). Setback lines and minimum yards;
(g). Building separations;
(h). Height of structures;
(1). Signs;
0). Off-street parking and loading spaces;
M. Design standards; and,
(1). Phasing of development.
(4). Action by the City Council. The City Council shall consider the
recommendation of the Zoning Commission and, pursuant to a public hearing
called by them within 60 days following receipt of the recommendation, may
affirm, modify or deny the PUD plan. if the plan is approved, the applicant shall
submit a final plan in accordance with the approval of the City Council. When the
City Council approves the final plan and plat, the area of land Involved shall be
redesignated as a PUD district by ordinance which shall Incorporate the final plan,
Including any conditions or restrictions that may be imposed by the City Council.
Each PUD district created shall be numbered consecutively, e.g., PUD-1, PUD-2, etc.
(5). Effect of Approval. The final plat as approved, together with the
conditions and restrictions imposed, shall constitute the zoning for the district. No
building permit shall be issued for any structure within the district unless such
structure conforms to the provisions of the plan.
(6). Abandonment or Expiration. The Zoning Administrator or other
appropriate city official shall monitor the Planned Unit Development for
compliance with the completion schedule set forth in the approved development
plan and to assure that all improvements have been made In accordance with the
approved development plan. Notice of Noncompliance with completion schedule
or failure to Install improvements in accordance with approved development plan
shall be delivered in writing to the land owner and/or developer. Within ninety
days of the notice of noncompliance or notice of failure to complete
Improvements, the land owner and/or developer may apply to the City Council for
an extension of time. Said application shall set forth a proposed completion
schedule and/or new time table for installation of the improvements. Upon the
application of the land owner and/or developer, the City Council may grant only
one extension.
Upon the abandonment of a development authorized under this section, the
Zoning Commission or City Council shall initiate an amendment to the Official Map
so that the land will be rezoned in a category or categories which most nearly
approximate its then existing use or such other zoning category or categories
which it deems appropriate or into the category or categories it held before being
zoned as a PUD district. (Abandonment shall be deemed to have occurred when no
improvements have been made pursuant to the approved development plan for
a period of twelve months or upon the expiration of the completion schedule
approved as a part of the development plan for a development which has not
been completed. Improvements as used in this section shall mean those activities,
excluding design and financing, necessary for the orderly development of
property; including installation of private and public roads, sidewalks and curbs,
public and private utilities, street lighting, construction of buildings and
landscaping, and other changes in the property designed in the approved
development plan).
(7). Limitation on Rezoning. The Zoning Commission shall not initiate any
rt amendment to the zoning ordinance or Official Map concerning the property
Involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the
development as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed
Planned Unit Development and proceeding in accordance with the time
requirements imposed therein. From and after approval of the Planned Unit
Development by the City Council under Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the
building official is authorized to issue appropriate permits complying with
approved plan.
27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD).
(1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located In an area where
public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by
the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required.
(2). Land Area Requirement. The minimum land area required for a
change to or designation as a PUD shall be two acres and shall be under single
ownership. In determining whether minimum area requirements for a PUD district
have been met, computations shall include the entire area within the boundaries
of the district proposed, including the area of streets. Lands in such districts may
be divided into streets, but shall be so located, dimensioned and arranged as to
permit unified planning and development, to meet all requirements for PUD
districts and to provide adequate protection for uses within the district and in
surrounding areas.
(3). Establishment of PUD Districts. The following locational criteria shall
govern the type of planned unit developments that may be reviewed and
approved by the City Council.
(a). Residential PUD District. Residential PUD districts can be
established only in areas zoned R-1 through R-4, RA-1 through RA-3 districts
or directly upon annexation In any area designated as "residential" in the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
(b). Commercial PUD District. A commercial PUD district may be
established in B-2 through B-5 zones, or may be applied directly upon
annexation Into the City in accordance with the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan.
(c). industrial PUD District. An industrial PUD may be established In
1-1, 1-2, and B-5 zones or may be applied directly upon annexation into the
city, In accordance with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
(d). Mixed Use PUD. Based on site plan review, and after establishing
compatibility with the adjoining land uses and determining that the adverse
environmental impacts shall only be minimal and can be mitigated, the City
Council may allow a Mixed Use PUD in any district which qualifies for a
Residential, Commercial, or Industrial PUD.
(4). Use Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to permitted
uses and densities in various types of Planned Unit Developments.
(a). Residential PUD. Within a Residential PUD District, the uses and
structures permitted in R-1 through R-4 zones and RA-1 through RA-3 zones
shall be allowed. Residential dwelling unit densities within a proposed
residential PUD district shall be as follows:
Residential PUD Created
R-1 District
R-2 District
R-3 District
R-4 District
RA-1 District
RA-2 District
RA-3 District
Maximum Permissible Density
3 dwelling units/acre
5 dwelling units/acre
7 dwelling units/acre
10 dwelling units/acre
24 dwelling units/acre
33 dwelling units/acre
33 dwelling units/acre
Commercial uses may be allowed in residential PUD district, provided:
1). Such establishments and their parking areas shall not
occupy more than ten percent (10%) of the land area of the Planned
Unit Development district of gross area 5.0 acres or more. For those
under 5.0 acres in area, the permissible gross commercial area shall be
IV
subject to negotiation with the Zoning Commission and the City
Council but shall not exceed 10% of the land area.
2). Such establishments shall be limited to trade and service
facilities such as small retail stores, coin -operated laundry and dry
cleaning establishments, beauty shops and barber shops. However,
service stations and repair garages shall not be permitted;
3). Such establishments shall be so located, designed and
operated as to serve primarily the needs of persons within the district
and not persons residing elsewhere;
4). No building permit for any convenience commercial
establishment shall be issued nor may any building be used for
convenience commercial establishment before sixty percent (60%) of
the dwelling units contemplated in the development plan have been
built and ready for occupancy;
5). The acreage proposed for commercial use and its parking
shall be excluded from the gross acreage when computing total
allowable dwelling units.
(b). Commercial PUD. The uses permitted in a Commercial PUD
district shall be the same as those permitted as Conditional or otherwise in
the zoning classification associated with the PUD created. For example, in a
B-3 PUD, all permitted and conditional uses in a B-3 zone may be allowed.
(c). Industrial PUD. The uses permitted in an Industrial PUD district
shall be the same as those permitted as a Conditional Use or otherwise, in
the zoning classification associated with the PUD district created. For
example, in an 1-1 PUD district, all permitted and conditional uses associated
with an 1-1 zone, may be allowed.
(d). Non -Residential Mixed Use PUD. The uses appropriate to a Mixed
Use PUD located in any district which qualifies for a Commercial or Industrial
PUD shall be determined by the City Council in conjunction with the PUD
preliminary approval on the basis of (a) their compatibility with the
surrounding land uses and (b) their compatibility with one another.
(e). Residential Mixed Use PUD. A Mixed Use PUD proposed in a
residential district [refer to 27.21.030(3)(a)) may be permitted with both
residential and commercial uses as per the following criteria:
1). The minimum land area for a Mixed Use PUD in a
residential district is twenty (20) acres.
2). The predominant land use character of the district must
be residential;
v
3). The residential uses appropriate to a Mixed Use PUD In a
residential district are as permitted in a Residential PUD;
4). The maximum permissible building height is 35 feet;
5). The combined area of all commercial uses cannot exceed
thirty-five percent (35%) Including the area of all associated facilities,
such as parking;
6). The maximum permissible ground coverage Including all
roads, buildings, and other areas of impervious coverage must be less
than 70%;
7). Industrial and noncompatible commercial uses are not
permitted. Commercial uses that may be permitted include all uses
permitted or conditionally permitted in B-1, B-2, and B-3 zones with
the following exceptions, which will not be permitted:
Automobile commercial parking enterprises; automobile sales;
automobile rental agency office; automobile service stations except
those with pump services only; boat sales; car washing and waxing in
conjunction with an automobile service station; food processing plant;
casinos; motels/hotels; plumbing and heating materials retail and
service; wholesale and "jobbing" establishments.
8). Vehicular access to all uses and/or activities of the Mixed
Use PUD shall be limited to the internal road system of the Mixed Use
PUD. Frontage of uses on a perimeter road/highway system shall be
prohibited.
9). Such commercial establishments shall be architecturally
harmonious and compatible with the associated residential uses and
primarily serve the needs of the persons residing in the district and
those in the immediate vicinity; and,
10). In the event that plans for a Mixed Use PUD Include a
commercial use not specifically provided by Section 27.21.030(4)(de)7),
then the City Council of Kalispell shall make a determination on
whether such use is generally compatible with residential uses and
with the "mix" of uses proposed in the PUD.
(5). PUD Preliminary Plan. The property owner applying fora PUD district
classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan which shall contain
the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the submittal shall
also Include the information and documents required for application stated in the
Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
vi
- (a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to
five foot Interval topographic map of the area drawn to a scale not less than
one inch equals two hundred feet showing all streets, buildings, open space,
lots and other elements basic to the development;
(b). Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and
nonresidential uses and structures within the area proposed to be developed
and maximum height of buildings or structure;
(c). Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic, parking, sewage
disposal, drainage, water supply, site perimeter treatment and other
pertinent site development features;
(d). Elevation 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;
(e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided
or unsubdivided land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be
changed to PUD as well as the land adjacent thereto;
(f). An enumeration of covenants in detail proposed to be made a
part of the PUD and shall be enforceable by the City Council;
(g). A statement expressing the order in which the development
shall occur and estimated time for completing the development. In case of
a phased development, estimated time schedule for starting and completing
each phase of the development shall be provided;
(h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization
with direct responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved
to provide for the operation and maintenance of all common facilities,
including private streets jointly shared by each property owner, if such
facilities are a part of the Planned Unit Development, and in such instance,
legal assurances shall be provided which show that the private organization
is self-perpetuating and adequately funded to accomplish its purposes. Real
property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed as
levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district;
(i). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which
are not dedicated to the public to be maintained to standards assuring
continuous and adequate maintenance at a reasonable and
nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Common
facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by
the private organization and at no expense to any governmental unit;
(j). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private
organization in such a manner that adequate and safe access is provided at
vii
all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health, sanitation and public
utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto and
so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area;
W. The off-street parking to be provided shall meet the minimum
standards for off-street parking as per Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning
- Ordinance;
(1). Where a PUD also Involves a subdivision of land, It shall also meet
the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act;
(m). The city council shall require bonding or any other appropriate
collateral to ensure that all required Improvements shall be satisfactorily
completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time
schedule; and,
(n). Any other information, plans and details which the Planning
Board and/or city council may desire to fully evaluate the development
proposal and its Impacts.
(6). Preparation of Final Plan. Upon approval of the preliminary plan by
the city council, the property owner may proceed with the preparation of the PUD
final plan which shall:
(a). Incorporate all the conditions imposed bythe City Council at the
time of approval of the preliminary plan;
(b). Have the following certification on the face of the plat:
I, , owner and developer of the
property set forth above, do hereby agree that I will develop the above
property as a Planned Unit Development in accordance to the submitted PUD
plan.
Signature
Property Owner//Developer
Approved this day of ,19 , by the Kalispell
City Council.
Attest:
City Finance Director
(7). Filing and Maintenance Of Final Plan. The applicant shall submit four
signed copies of the PUD, final plan and related documents to the Flathead
Regional Development Office. Upon approval by the City Council, one signed copy
of the plan shall be returned to the applicant, a signed copy shall be retained on
file in the City Finance Director's Office and one signed copy each shall be
forwarded to the Flathead Regional Development Office and the city building
official.
ix
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
To: Kalispell City/County Planning Board and Zoning Commissi
From: John Parsons, Flathead Regional Development Office
Date: March 14, 1995
Subject: Buffalo Commons PUD
Section 27.21.020(2)(e) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance states that: In the case of a plan
which proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions
proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after
consultation with the city attorney.
The City Attorney has not concluded his review of the terms and conditions proposed to protect
and maintain the integrity of the plan. This Commission is required to, but cannot, make this
Q
finding As a result, this requirement precludes the Kalispell City/County Zoning Commission
from making a recommendation on the requested PUD.
It is therefore recommended that the Commission continue this case to the April 11, 1995
hearing.
JP/sm
...1BUFCOMM.MEM
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
City
City of Kalispell
F.Q. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Manager
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
April 6, 1995 Kalispell, Montana 59901
RE: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Hosphotel in RA-1 and H-1 Zones
Dear Bruce:
Phone: (406) 758-5780
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular
session on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, and held a public hearing on the following:
A request by Northwest Healthcare to amend the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance Text, to allow hotels when in association with hospitals in the
RA-1 and H-1 zones and to define this type of facility.
John Parsons, of FRDO presented staff report #KZTA-95-1, which recommended the
text amendment be denied based on the commercial orientation of the use in not
keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood.
The CEO for Northwest Healthcare testified in favor of the proposed text amendment,
stating the numbers for an 8:2 ratio of commercial to patient use of the hosphotel
was driven by the business plan to ensure that the facility be self supporting.
One person spoke in opposition to a commercial enterprise which would directly
compete with his business. He expressed apprehension about the financial impacts
to his business, and wanted to know who will police the clientele of the hosphotel.
These concerns were discussed, and the Board felt that the intent of the hosphotel
be reflected in the numbers. The motion was made and seconded to approve the
zoning text amendment modifying the ratio to reflect that at least 30% of the beds
be reserved for patients and families, and recommending the requested text
amendment to allow hotels in association with hospitals in the RA-1 and H-1 zones
and to define this type of facility. This motion carried on a vote of 4 in favor, 2
opposed and 1 abstained.
It is recommended that the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be amended as
follows:
The amendment includes the creation of a new land use and allowing this use
as a permitted use in the RA-1 and H-1 zoning classifications. The new use is
proposed to be called a Hosphotel.
This request has been amended to allow One (1) Hosphotel as part of a
Residential Mixed Use PUD.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell a City of Whitefish •
Bruce Williams, City %tanager
Re: Zoning Text Amendment - Hosphotel in RA-1 and H-1
April 6, 1995
Page 2
The proposed definition for this type of facility is:
"A public lodging facility located in close proximity to major medical care
facilities which includes a minimum number of beds or rooms reserved
at a reduced rate according to 'ability to pay' for patients (and/or)
family members. Said facility shall not exceed a height of 35 feet nor
provide more than 50 total sleeping rooms or 60 total beds. At least +0%
30% of the beds shall be reserved for patients and/or family members."
This recommendation is being forwarded to the City Council for final action. Council
needs to wait for the minutes of the Planning Board meeting prior to taking final
action on this matter. However, this does not preclude Council discussion at its
workshop. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the
Commission or. John Parsons at FRDO.
Respectfully Submitted,
K ELL CITY- OUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
K�- t�A
T erese Fox Hash
President
TFH/JJP/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-95-01
Minutes of 3//14/95 meeting forwarded separately
F:\FRDO\TRANSMIT\KZTA95-1.. TR 1Nt
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
TO: KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING
COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN PARSONS, SENIOR PLANNER
RE: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - HOSPHOTEL IN RA-1 AND H-1
DATE: March 4, 1995
A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 14, 1995, Kalispell City -County Planning
Board and Zoning Commission meeting to discuss a proposed amendment to the adopted
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The amendment includes the creation of a new land use and
allowing this use as a permitted use in the RA-1 and H-1 zoning classifications. The new use
is proposed to be called a Hosphotel.
This request has been amended to allow One (1) Hosphotel as part of a Residential Mixed Use
PUD.
The proposed definition for this type of facility is:
"A public lodging facility located in close proximity to major medical care
facilities which includes a minimum number of beds or rooms reserved at a
reduced rate according to 'ability to pay' for patients (and/or) family members.
Said facility shall not exceed a height of 35 feet nor provide more than 50 total
sleeping rooms or 60 total beds. At least 10% of the beds shall be reserved for
patients and/or family members."
This request has been amended to read "At least 20% of the beds ...".
ANALYSIS:
This type of facility can benefit both the public and a hospital by providing lodging to those
patients and/or family members whose close proximity and support is so valuable a commodity
in the recovery of patients from the trauma of surgery or the like. Northwest Healthcare
provides northwest Montana with a regional healthcare facility. Being regional in nature many
patients and families have to travel for their services. This facility would allow a hotel with
20% of the rooms available to patients and families.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
As part of the Residential Mixed Use Planned Unit Development additional review as to the
location, height, architecture, parking, etc., and the way in which the ratio of rooms would be
governed could be obtained.
When this concept was first being discussed the City and myself were supportive of this
concept. This was based on the impression left by the applicants representative that the ratio
was to be more like 50150. However, if that ratio was found to be unrealistic then a reduction
in this ratio may be warranted. The specific exclusion of hotels/motels from the Residential
Mixed Use PUD was in part to eliminate a high impact commercial use needing regional
support in favor of the more neighborhood oriented type of commercial uses. As such, a
Hosphotel with a ratio of eight (8) commercially available rooms to two (2) rooms available
to patients and/or their families is not in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance.
Therefore, staff cannot support this change as proposed. If the applicant wishes to provide
overnight accommodation for the patients and their families and help offset the cost by opening
a commercial hotel as part of this facility then a ratio closer to 50/50 as originally anticipated,
should be proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is therefore recommended that the text amendment as proposed be recommended for denial
to the City Council.
\Reports ... \KZTA95- l .NWH