Gelinas to Kukulski/Vital InformationCity Manager
Chris Kukulski
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
Dear Chris,
I-
12/01/03
Enclosed please find vital information concerning the re -zoning and subdivision request of block
203, "the Old County Courthouse East' ' project.
As you are aware, the planning board did not advise a zone change from R-3 to R-4. The
planning board meeting was very emotionally charged, and we feel that our idea and motivation
was inaccurately conveyed. We also feel that many of the concerns that were stated as facts, are
in reality, myths, and unfounded fears, along with a lot of confusion. At this time we would like
to clarify these concerns.
As you are aware, the 60,000 sq. ft. building now on the block, is a concern to not only the
neighbors, but the entire community. The asbestos issue, dictates limits for our options on what
can be done on this property. Unfortunately, the newest section, and the smallest section, the
North end is the biggest problem concerning the amount of asbestos that it contains. Fortunately,
this section is in excellent shape, only I V2 stories high, and can be re -modeled while not
disturbing the asbestos, making the building safe, pleasing to the eye, usable, and valuable.
Our intent is to demolish the entire building, including this section, but if we cannot come up with
a way to remove the asbestos according to EPA regulations, we may have to keep it. We are
working very hard with the DEQ (EPA) in Helena, to come up with a solution to this dilemma.
Because of the complexity and unknowns involved with this building we originally requested an
R-5 zone change to give leeway on this project concerning the possible non -removal of the
newest section of the building. After a lot of opposition from the neighborhood, Tom Jentz
suggested that at the planning board meeting we change it to an R-4, this still allowed us to work
within the parameters to accomplish our objective. Mr. Jentz stated that the neighbors would
love the idea, be relieved that we did not request an R-5. Neither Mr. Jentz, our ourselves were
prepared for the unreasonable "personality" of our opposition. We were dubbed as un-
trustworthy, trying to "pull one over "on the community. Therefor anything that we have said, or
proposed from that point on, has been misinterpreted, and twisted. The only thing that the
opposing neighbors would agree to now, with us, is complete demolition of the entire building,
and single family homes, to there satisfaction. At this time we would also like to mention that only
1/3 of the neighbors are opposed to R-4, but those enlisted the voices of others in the community,
not directly related to this project.
We are trying very hard to make this project work, while making it a pleasing project for our
community. We live here. Gelinas Development consists of, Matthew Gelinas, a builder who
after graduating from Flathead High, went into the carpenters apprenticeship program, and has
worked in almost every aspect of construction since the late 1970's, Matt is also a certified
asbestos removal contractor/supervisor, and Kathy (Hardy) Gelinas, who is an Architect, and has
designed and worked on many residential and commercial projects in the valley for over 20 years.
After much research and thought, the projects proposed (see the attached sheets) were agreed
upon by Tri-City Zoning (see attached staff reports #KZC-03-3A, and #KPP-03-15), and the
majority of neighbors in the area.
At this time we would like to address the concerns of those opposed to this project. On 1 l/01/03,
we hand delivered a letter outlining our intent to everyone on the list provided by Tri-City
Planning, we did not give this letter to those involved with their opposing opinion not on the list,
because we don't know who they are, where they live, etc. (see attached "letter to neighbors).
The concerns of the opposes are as follows:
1) An R-4 designation with the proposed town homes will devalue their adjacent property and
that of the surrounding community.
-Why this is a unfounded fear: The subdivision that we proposed would have it's own high value,
as it's own entity, not relying on the surrounding homes. The lot location, size, along with the
requirements that only a subdivision can mandate, such as alley access to garages, sidewalks,
landscaping, etc. dictates the type of town home that would be built, the market, and economics
would require a minimum $200,000 units, that is 2 units per lot = minimum $400,000/lot.
Compare that with an R-3 designation, single family home, no new subdivision, along with no
desirable requirements as mentioned above. The economic requirements would dictate lower
income homes, because of the comparable homes directly adjacent to block 203. Contrary to
ideas expressed at the planning board meeting, alley access would not be important to potential
builders, the size of the lot would be important, and an alley with setbacks would be detrimental,
also after demolition of the small mechanical building there would be no usable asphalt left, and
alley construction would be expensive, something that would not be warranted by the cost of the
lots. Any other improvements that a subdivision would require, would be up to the discretion of
each homeowner, and the continuity of an up -scale project goes out the window. We feel that
our project would bring the "East side" charm to this part of the East side neighborhood
(something that is not there now), and could only increase the value of surrounding properties.
Single family homes cannot guarantee that, it would not be economically feasible to build an
upper end home in that block, as mentioned above.
2) Traffic would double
-Why this is an unfounded fear: Please see the staff report #KPP-03-15, p. 3-4, D: Roads
3)If approved as R-4, it could be considered spot zoning, and other home owners might want to
re -zone their property to R-4.
-Why this is an unfounded fear: This would be designated as a subdivision, not a single lot, spot
zone. A single home owner compared to an entire subdivision project, does not even begin to
compare, it would be very hard to set a precedence for other single home owners, unless they
own an entire city block. Additionally, R-4 designation is already less than 1/2 block away from
our proposed subdivision, and has not set a precedence.
We would also like to state a few other facts: Our proposed subdivision meets the requirements of
the Kalispell growth policy, as well as many other positives as noted in the staff reports prepared
by Tri-City zoning.
Our rebuttals to the unfounded fears, voiced by the opposition to this project has been referred to
as "threats, and scare tactics", this is not the case, the facts are that this is a complicated project,
we are trying to do the best we can with what we have, and being members of this community, we
feel we are offering a beautiful project, that can only increase the value of those properties around
block 203, increasing the tax base, 'and enhancing the community as a whole.
We hope that this information will clear things up, and make more sense out of our intentions for
this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at 257-1569, or
250-2404.
UE=
Matthew and Kathleen Gelinas
237 Lakeshore Dr.
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
237 Lakeshore Drive
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
11/1/03
it
The builders interested in building on the proposed lots, have a majority of clientel that are
"empty -nesters" seeking to downsize, and have less maintenance, something that townhomes
afford, while having the quality home that they are accustom to.
Our intention is to demolish the entire buildin but as has been discuss d
VVehope that this correspondence has answered your concerns, ifyou have any other questions
or concerns, please feel free to contact us at 257-1569.
Thank You,
MMOI-��T
A;YW-✓ e-A*,r
.
f8� fG
AMM
iLj 11
fM'WWsI
R4,oCA7e
-A
'
"
ryi
ALLFh - TO f:G uIMGD
1
(T>GR Z�G�R
� I brafm8l
_
I
RAW 10 Zoo"
0�r
AAr
I GAL IA
st' u'
—
f7�/a�rnu-�CrJ - gLOLK 20�i
—
'f
AetANA<i 'I%GNF.LONM�'
V 7- KV
DiX �r.Yq�(12)�5/51^Va1,F.
FAMiw (K-�i)"]<im l(1
ID�(14%bls/1'ouaim+.m
LR�4� 3�50�
I
3,
*':� Avg d
Lof�. Pfli— + KG61,7 OxNyo& 9- +Tb r
°%* Ynvxwv)
,'�.exlsf»fa
xa�r Ass"1"�
a� 'row
��vW;ce (4)Lo�s Iwto
s�etols IF Ca+b
I�
Nqz�
V�f�RSA(� Z I,,
IG�IGNAT'ranl - Bcoalc 2D3
K,Iofv,-L . , "T-
�In1A5 l2ev cytAaNr
J 'i L & W-7- lybi
p�Jrx�✓ : (24i tot-> /TawN 1rctAES
Lo: s �Gx i91:Nv
(L ta¢ awrPhzE Ca e*rr^.o�es) .,
I W4
0 0 r O O O
gwltia phxw _. rrar. � I raMiw , uNrrs A/�
iTN+ F.Y J
L W
I
- sesame
AMA �r/�, v o
' NNva9R �y
IF
N
1211m lti _.. rwmw ••"•
✓NIA' G 11�1?1��
.3