Greer to Kukulski/Clarification of Parking StandardsNOV 2 2 1999
M PC
PO Box 7607 Kalispell, Montana 59904 (406) 756-1236
22 November 1999
Chris Kukulski
City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
RE: CLARIFICATION OF PARKING STANDARDS WITHIN BUFFALO COMMONS
Dear Mr Kukulski:
It has come to my attention by the City Zoning Administrator that the application of setback
standards relative to parking within the Buffalo Commons PUD are unclear. In particular, can
parking lots be located within the required setback areas? As the author of the PUD proposal, it was
always my intent to apply setback requirements to structures, not to parking lots. The purpose of
this letter is to offer my opinion and this manner and to seek official clarification via the process
outlined in Article V of the PUD Development Agreement.
The Buffalo Commons PUD was approved as a mixed use PUD within underlying B-3 and RA-1
zoning district. As such, the mix of allowable uses borrows from all "R" zones plus B-1,B-2, and
B-3 zones. The relationship between setbacks and parking differ among these different zones.
Unfortunately, the PUD application and approval documents do not clearly state "that parking is
permitted within the setback areas." However, intent can be implied by some of the language within
the approved documents. Please note that this concern for parking within setbacks is only an issue
relative to the nonresidential uses in Phases I1I, IV, and V.
Phase Ill of Buffalo Commons permits uses normally permitted in zones B-1, R-5, and H-1 plus
allowance for most other types of retail uses provided the individual use is < 3000 sq ft in area. (See
page l 1 of the approved PUD application book, dated June 1995). Two of the 3 aforementioned
zones permit parking within the setback area. Specific reference to the relationship of structures to
setbacks is also made on page 11 where it states that "Rear setbacks shall be five feet for those
structures ......... ' Further clarification of the intent to permit parking within the setback area (as
permitted in most commercial zones) is shown by the parking exhibit on page 27 of the PUD-
approved application booklet. The exhibit clearly shows parking within the setback area with a
landscape strip between the sidewalk' and parking area (perimeter landscape strip). The parking
language for both the retail and medical/office uses of phases IV & V is identical; "Landscaping is
encouraged within the parking lot in the form of islands and along the perimeter of the parking lot
for the purpose of providing a visual relief between a public street and the parking' lot." (Pages 26
& 28)
Land Use Consultants for the Private and Public Sectors
The sections in the covenants for the retail and medical/professional office uses are nearly identical
relative to (1) landscaping within the parking lots, (2) setbacks, and (3) parking. The phrase
"landscape perimeter' appears in both sets of covenants and would not have been used if parking
could not be located within the 20 foot setback area. It is also important to note that the setback
requirement (intended for structures as indicated in previous paragraph) is less if the adjacent lot line
borders common area. (Please note typo in recorded covenants in Article VI, Section 3 of the Medical/Professional
Facilities. See application covenants for proper language) The wording in the parking section of both
covenants references that parking be in accordance to the KZO for the intended uses. The phrase
"intended uses" was simply meant to indicate that the number of required parking spaces is based
on the proposed use.
As you are aware, the purpose of a planned unit development is to offer creativity and flexibility in
design and regulation. The result has been very impressive so far, with over 7 acres of irrigated
landscape common area, trail system, and numerous other amenities. Sufficient review mechanisms
are in place to ensure that all development continues to conform to the intent of the approved PUD,
including sufficient landscaping adjacent to buildings and parking lots and within boulevards.
We would appreciate a determination by the Site Plan Review Committee to wit:
Parking lots, associated with non-residential uses in Phases III, IV, and V of
Buffalo Commons may be developed within the setback area but not within 5
feet of the property boundary except in situations where the adjacent property
boundary is landscaped common area, in which case, no setback is required.
This language attempts to reflect standards acceptable in other zoning districts, such as "B" districts,
while recognizing the generous landscape features already associated with the PUD. In my opinion,
this should: be viewed as a minor modification via the process and description set forth in the PUD
Development Agreement.
Please initiate the site plan review process as outlined by the PUD Agreement and contact me if you
have any questions concerning this request.
Respectfully submitted,
David M Greer
consultant to NWHC
C: Jim Oliverson
William Astle
City Attorney
Zoning Administrator