9. Review of KDC OfferingAgenda - April b, 1998
AGENDA ITEM 9 - REVIEW OF KDC OFFERING/POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: Upon passage of the offering option the Council
approved at their special meeting, I asked Staff to review the options to determine if there is
any inherent problems that would be created by the offering. I have enclosed a memo from
Ross Plambeck with Staff analysis of the offering. As you will see, there are problems that
we need to address prior to making an offering.
RECOMMENDATION: It is clear that we need to clarify the offering
documents/options that were approved at the meeting. We should not place ourselves into
another scenario that:
l: creates substandard, non -conforming lots,
2: requires us to re -advertise parcels,
3: does not allow flexibility to all interested developers,
4: "locks -out" potential developers.
In terms of a Staff recommendation, just as we did at the special meeting, I must recommend
the option that Mayor Boharski supported at the meeting. That option is listed as the first
-0
option on the memo: Offer any and/or all City owned property witapecified packaging
of the lots.
ACTION REQUIRED: A motion clarifying your desired offering option is needed.
1VIEMO
Date: April 2, 1998
To: Larry Gallagher, PECDD Director
From: Ross Plambeck, Redevelopment Manager
RE: Analysis of Offering Options for City Owned Property in Blocks 36 & 45
At the City Council's special meeting on March 25, 1998, four separate options were specified in
the offering of City property. You requested me to do a comparative analysis of those different
options and make recommendations on how the Offering Document could be structured to ensure
the proposals submitted would meet the goals of properly redeveloping the site. It is likely that
multiple proposals would be submitted with various combinations of the four different options.
Comparing the different proposals will be difficult because several of the possible combinations
would be in direct conflict with other proposals and not meet the specific option requirements
identified in the Offering Document. In order to sort through the possible variations that may be
submitted, I have created a table that compares the feasibility of all the combinations. The
attached table contains 14 different possibilities. While not all of them are practical from the
standpoint of what developers would likely submit, there is still a possibility the City could
receive some of those conflicting proposals.
Contained in the Council's motion is the statement: "with bids opened as quickly as the law
allows." The current Offering options creates many likely scenarios of different proposals that if
accepted by the Council would require re -offering the property and re -advertising for proposals.
Option 3 in particular causes two problems: (1) the pairing of NFS Bldg with Lots 1 & 2, Block
36, would not permit the construction of a functional parking lot that would meet City codes (see
attached analysis and site plans), and (2) if those lots are sold along with NFS Bldg., then the
remainder of the %2 block is not part of any other Option, conflicts directly with Options 1 & 4,
and would require another re -offering of City owned property.
Irwin Davis & Co. has indicated in their March 16, 1998, letter to the City, an interest in
submitting a revised offering to purchase the ST of Lot 7, and all of Lots 8 thru 14 of Block 36.
The current four options do not allow any consideration of their current proposal, or the
flexibility to evaluate it compared to other proposals.
Recommendation
In order to prepare an Offering Document that expedites the consideration of proposals and
permits the Council to make decisions without re -advertising over and over, a clarification and
simplification of the Offering Options should be considered:
Offer any and/or all City owned property, with no specified packaging of the lots.
Proposals would be evaluated and recommendations made to City Council on which
proposals best meet the goals of the Offering Document in redeveloping the properties.
2. Offer all City owned property as one offering, with no splitting up of any parcels from the
whole.
3. If the four options are left as is, and a proposal for Option 3 is submitted by an investor
and accepted by the City, then a re -advertisement of the remainder of property would be
required. Adopting recommendation 1 and/or 2 would eliminate that conflict.
4. If Option 3 remains as an alternative, then an additional 14 feet from Lot 3 should be
included to create a functional parking lot with a 64 foot lot width.
5. If the four options are left as is, it is conceivable that all of the City owned property in
Blocks 36 & 45 could be sold except for the NFS Bldg. Recommendation 1 and/or 2
would eliminate that conflict.
Sale of City Owned Property on Blocks 36 & 45
Feasibility Analysis of Various Options to be Offered
(analysis assumes Option 3 has been revised to provide a 64 foot wide parking lot)
Option
Lots
Sq. Ft.
Feasibility
Comments
I
I thru 12, Blk. 36
63,000
limited
Leaves NFS Bldg. out of the
13 & 14, Blk. 36
offering option altogether and no
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
parking.
2
NFS Bldg
10,500
limited
Only offers NFS Bldg. and parking
15 & 16, Blk. 36
lot.
3
NFS Bldg.
12,460
limited and
Dedicating the NE lots for parking
1, 2, & N14' of 3
conflicting
for NFS contradicts Options 1 & 4.
4
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
70,000
limited
Leaves NFS Bldg. out of the
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
offering option altogether and no
1 thru 4, Wk. 45
parking.
1 & 2
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
73,500
OK
Combined offer sells all of City
13 & 14, Blk. 36
owned land
i thru 4, Blk. 45
NFS B1d2
15 & 16, Blk. 36
1 & 3
1 dim 12. Wk. 36
limited and
Dedicating the NE lots for parking
13 & 14, Blk. 36
conflicting
for NFS contradicts Option 1 and
I thru 4, Blk. 45
?
leaves Lots 15 & 16 out of the
offering altogether.
NFS Bldg.
1.2,&N14'of3
1 & 4
1 thru 12. Blk. 36
limited and
Leaves NFS Bldg. out of the
13 & 14, Blk. 36
duplicates land
offering option altogether and no
I thru 4, Blk. 45
N/A
offered
parking.
1 thru 12. Blk. 36
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
2 & 3
NFS Bldg
duplicates and
Not a viable offering option.
15 & 16, Blk. 36
N/A
contradictory
NFS Blde.
1,2,&N14'of3
2 & 4
NFS Bld`
73,500
OK?
Duplicates the sale of Lots 15 &
15 & 16, Blk. 36
16, but disposes of all City owned
land
I thru 12. Blk. 36
13 thru 16. Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
Option
Lots
Sq. Ft.
Feasibility
Comments
3 & 4
NFS Bldg.
limited and
Dedicating the NE lots for parking
1, 2, & N14' of 3
contrad ,-tory
for NFS contradicts Option 4
I thru 12, Blk. 36
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
1, 2, & 3
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
contradictory
Duplicates the sale of NFS Bldg.
13 & 14, Blk. 36
and dupBcates
and dedicating NE lots to NFS
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
?
contradicts Option 1
NFS Bldg
15 & 16, Blk. 36
NFS Bldg.
1,2,&N14'of3
1, 2, & 4
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
Duplicates the sale of Lots 1 thru
13 & 14, Blk. 36
14, Blk. 36, Lots 1 thru 4, Blk. 45
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
?
N/A
NFS Bldg
15 & 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
1, 3 & 4
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
Duplicates the sale of Lots I thru
13 & 14, Blk. 36
14, Blk. 36, Lots I thru 4, Blk. 45,
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
N/A
and contradicts Options 1 & 4.
NFS Bldg.
1,2,&N14'of3
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
2,3 & 4
NFS Bldg
Duplicates the sale of NFS Bldg,
15 & 16, Blk. 36
Lots 15 & 16, Blk. 36, and
?
N/A
conflicts with Option 4
NFS Bldg.
1,2,&N14'of3
1 thru 12, Blk. 36
13 thru 16, Blk. 36
1 thru 4, Blk. 45
) r 'I
oR:"A
(RTS)
OPTION #1
Lots 1 through 12, Block 36
Lots 13 & 14, Block 36
Lots 1 through 4, Block 45
Total Square Footage: 63,000
9/m\57, CENTER 57'F*
NFS BLDG
b 3500 SF LOT
N 7,860 SF BUILDING AREA
KELLY MAIN STREET FURNITURE
C' 10,500 SF LOT
MONTANA EXPRESSIONS & CIAO
14,000 SF LOT
��4�
City Owned
LOTS 15 & 16
7,000 SF LOT
City Owned
Public Parking (22 spaces)
LOTS 13 & 14
7,000 SF LOT
BLOCK 45
_ Lars i mAKovc vi 1Z
44, 000 SQ. Fr
City Owned
Public Parking (35 spaces)
LOTS 1, 2,3 & 4
14,000 SF LOT
OPTION #2
NFS Bldg.
Lots 15 & 16, Block 36
Total Square Footage: 10,500
rKELLY MAIN STREET FURNITURE d
ft 10,500 SF LOT
MONTANA EXPRESSIONS & CIAO
14,000 SF LOT
i
City Owned
LOTS 15 & 16
7,000 SF LOT
City Owned
Public Parking (22 spaces)
LOTS 13 & 14
7,000 SF LOT
sm
BLOCK 45
CEN7ER STD
Lots 1 -rHftovGH 12
44, 000 .50, FT.
' I A40 I
1
to
City Owned
Public Parking (35 spaces)
LOTS 1, 2,3 & 4
14,000 SF LOT
t-
OPTION #3
NFS Bldsz.
Lots 1, 2 & North 14 feet of Lot 3, Block 36
Total Square Footage: 12,460
��5
3500 SF LOT
7,860 SF BUILDING AREA
KELLY MAIN STREET FURNITURE
r, 10,500 SF LOT
MONTANA EXPRESSIONS & CIAO
14,000 SF LOT
CO),
6/4Z
City Owned
LOTS 15 & 16
7,000 SF LOT
City Owned
Public Parking (22 spaces)
LOTS 13 & 14
7,000 SF LOT
GENTER STD
LaT:-:, i 1-4i&4ucivi
Loc
000 5GL. FT
i4o� �b� i4o
I BLOCK 45 1
I \
tu
City Owned
Public Parking (35 spaces)
LOTS 1, 2,3 & 4
14,000 SF LOT
US
�o2'c1�
cam)
OPTION #4
Lots 1 through 12, Block 36
Lots 13 through 16, Block 36
Lots 1 through 4, Block 45
Total Square Footage: 70,000
NFS BLDG
t) r c� 3500 SF LOT
7,860 SF BUILDING AREA
KELLY MAIN STREET FURNITURE
C 10,500 SF LOT
MONTANA EXPRESSIONS & CIAO
14,000 SF LOT
E:3 L. 02
City Owned
LOTS 15 & 16
7,000 SF LOT
City Owned
Public Parking (22 spaces)
LOTS 13 & 14
7,000 SF LOT
EAM
t
I3LocK
CEN7ER STD
HI 1
rt_
---Lars 1 -TKRovGH 12
��. LOC K
000 SQ FT
City Owned
Public Parking (35 spaces)
LOTS 1, 2,3 & 4
14,000 SF LOT
OPTION #3: Analysis and Recommendations
This option is the most difficult to evaluate when compared to the other three options. A
proposal to the City that is only for Option 3 will present a conflict if either Options 1 or 4 are
also submitted. Options 1 & 4 would include the same lots in the NE corner of Block 36, but
would not include the NFS Bldg. While the Council's motion doesn't specify the use of the
vacant property, the assumption is to provide off-street parking for the NFS Bldg. occupants.
Off street parking will need to be designed to meet the "Minimum Parking Lot Requirements" as
specified in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (Section 27.26.030 (3) DESIGN, Figure 1, App. A),
and the Standards for Design and Construction.
Option 3 currently offers Lots 1 & 2 along with the NFS Bldg. This 50 foot lot width will
provide only 14 parking spaces as shown on the site plan. In order to create a more functional
parking lot with more parking, Option 3 should be changed to offer 64 feet of lot width (Lots 1, 2
& N14' of 3). The 8,960 sq.ft. lot will provide 22 parking spaces, including one ADA van
accessible stall closest to the building as shown on the site plan. The following criteria has been
used in developing the dimensional requirements necessary:
0 The Standards for Design and Construction require curb cuts for driveways to be located
a minimum of 35 feet from the edge of pavement of the nearest abutting intersection
(Sec. 2, DESIGN STANDARDS, DS-06, Driveways).
Utilizing a One Way Traffic flow for the parking lot layout will require less total width
and reduce turning conflicts on both I' Ave. East and Center Street.
Access to the lot would be from the alley at Center Street. Egress will be a right out only
turn onto 1" Avenue East (left turning movements from the parking lot would cause
conflicts with northbound traffic stacked at the new signalized intersection, and vehicles
turning south from Center Street).
The most convenient layout for ease of use is 60 C angle parking and will ensure proper
one way traffic flow. (See attached parking lot layout)
Landscaping is required at 5% of the total parking lot area per Section 27.26.030 (6)
LANDSCAPING. The section also states "Landscaping is particularly encouraged along
the perimeter of the parking lot for the purposes of providing a visual relief between a
public street and the parking lot."
Rt st- % o.)-t-'
ONL-.
/L-
V IY7
x
L crr %eq to -n-k