05. Ordinance 1538 - Zone Change and PUD - Courthouse EastTri-Clay Planning Office
17 Second Street East — Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
tricity@centurytel.net
www.tricityplanning-mt.com
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner
Jaynes H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT Courthouse East Zone Change Request from R-3 to R-5 and
Planned Unit Development - Fifth Avenue East
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2005
BACKGROUND: This is a request by DEV Properties for a zone change from R-3, Urban.
Single Family Residential, to R-5, Residential / Professional Office, with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow the rehabilitation and reuse of an existing building known as
Courthouse East on approximately 2.01 acres. The project proposal includes 30
apartments, 20,000 square feet of professional office space and approximately 1,600 square
feet of retail. The property is located on the east side of Fifth Avenue East between 7th and
8th Streets East.
Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff reports KZC-05-3 and KPUD-
05-3 evaluating the proposal. She noted that the PUD is predicated on the zone change
since the R-5 zone allows for professional offices. The zone change allows some flexibility
with regard to the development standards and in this case the issues related to the
proposal are neighborhood compatibility, mitigation of traffic impacts and the overall
intensity of the proposed project. The staff recommended approval of the proposal subject
to conditions.
During the public hearing the applicants explained their proposal, their vision for the
project and their desire to meet the needs of the neighborhood. Several people from the
neighborhood spoke in favor of the proposal because it preserved the historic building and
provides some predictability about the property. Several other people from the
neighborhood spoke in opposition to the proposal because of the density and intensity of
the use, issues related to parking and neighborhood compatibility.
The board discussed the proposal and considered the testimony. There was considerable
discussion regarding the density of the project, parking requirements, access, impacts to
the neighborhood and the status and condition of the building. A motion was made to
recommend to Kalispell City Council that the property be rezoned R-5/PUD, Residential /
Professional Office, subject to conditions as amended which failed on a vote of three in
favor and three opposed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Kalispell City Council consider the proposal., the issues and the
recommendation of the Kalispell Planning Board.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
City of Kalispell a City of Whitefish - City of Columbia Falls •
Courthouse East Zone Change and PUD
May 11, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once fully developed.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Narda A. Wilson, es H. Patrick
Senior Planner � Manager
Report compiled: May 11, 2005
c: Theresa White, KaEspell City Clerk
TRANSMIT/KALISPELLJ2005KZC0S-3 KPUDMEMO.DOC
ORDINANCE NO. 1538
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF
KAL1SPE LL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 14(aU), DY CONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-12, BLOCK 203
KALISPELL ADDITION, LOCATED IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21
WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA (PREVIOUSLY ZONED CITY R-3,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY R-5 (RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE), WITH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 2020, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE,
DATE.
WHEREAS, DEV Properties, the owner of the property described above, petitioned the City of
Kalispell that the zoning classification attached to the above described tract of land
be zoned R-5, Residential/Professional Office with a Planned Unit Development
overlay on approximately 2 acres of land, and
WHEREAS, the property is located at 723 Fifth Avenue East and is known as Courthouse East,
and
WHEREAS, the petition of DEV Properties was the subject of a report compiled by the Tri-City
Planning Office, Staff Report ##KZC-05-3 I KPUD-05-3, in which the Tri-City
Planning Office evaluated the petition and recommended that the property as
described above be zoned R-5, Residential/Professional Office, with a Planned Unit
Development overlay, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the matter on April 19,
2005, and due to a vote of three in favor and three opposed, was unable to
recommend that the zoning classification be changed to City R-5, Residential/
Professional Office with a Planned Unit Development overlay, and
WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to zone the property as
described R-5, Residential/Professional Office with a Planned Unit Development
overlay, the City Council finds such zoning to be consistent with the Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020 and adopts, based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-
608, M.C.A., and State, Etc. v. Board of County Commissioners, Etc. 590 P2d 602,
the findings of fact of TCPO as set forth in Staff Report No. KZC-05-3 / KPUD-05-
3, as amended by the Kalispell City Planning Board.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1460) is hereby amended by designating the
property described above as R-5, Residential/Professional Office with a
Planned Unit Development overlay on approximately 2 acres.
SECTION 11. The Planned Unit Development proposed by DEV Properties upon the real
property described above is hereby approved, subject to the following
conditions:
That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application
submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same as indicated on
the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as modified by these conditions.
That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be designed and
installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards and shall be
subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public Works Department.
4. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Fire
Department for compliance with the International Fire Code.
5. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation, irrigation and
maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free, dust -free area until such time
as that phase is fully developed.
6. A redesign of the parking lot be provided that includes a five foot perimeter landscape buffer,
is dimensionally accurate and incorporates some landscaping within the parking lot design.
7. The number of dwellings shall be reduced by two to a maximum of 28 dwelling units in order
to comply with the limits of the R-5 zoning being requested.
8. The boulevard areas shall be landscaped in accordance with a plan that has been reviewed and
approved by the Kalispell Parks and. Recreation Department.
9. The overall landscape plan shall be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and Recreation
Director regarding the exact size and location of the plantings and species lists.
10. That sidewalks be provided as indicated on the site plan that provide a continuous and
connected system along the streets and avenues abutting this site.
11. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes attractive lighting fixtures and a type and level
of lighting not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose.
12. That a comprehensive sign plan be submitted which indicates an integrated design of lettering
and materials. All signs shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
13. The use of the artist studios are recognized as live / work units and it is anticipated that some
limited retail sales would be allowed on the premises. However, no sales of items which are
not produced on -site would be allowed from the artists studios or other items that would be of
a general retail nature.
14. That the refuse areas be adequately screened from public view.
15. The phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding or insurance for
the full cost of the proposed infrastructure and improvements to ensure the improvements will
be completed as proposed, shall be provided by the developer. That U. ilh g and timing 0the development shall oeour as proposed. Bonding for- the proposed inf*astvaetur-e an
ovemeiits at: other- aeceptable means of insur-ing that the impreNements will be eeFapleted
a&fwepesed shall be provided by the developeT�.
16. If the roject is.not..su.b.stqiqt.iallv com leted or is abandoned by December 2007 the city has
the option to use the collateral to remove the building and clear the site.
17. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based on terms
and conditions included in the planned unit development.
SECTION Ill. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION IV. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after 30 days of its passage by
the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA, THIS 6TH DAY OF JUKE, 2005.
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street .l•ast — Suite 21.1.
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
tricitya- centorytel.net
May 11, 2005
James H. Patrick, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RE: Courthouse East - Zone Change and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Dear Jim:
The Kalispell City Planning Board met on. April 19, 2005 and held a public hearing to
consider a request for a zone change from R-3, Urban Single Family Residential, to R-
5, Residential / Professional Office, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow
the rehabilitation and reuse of an existing building known as Courthouse East on
approximately 2.01 acres. The project proposal includes 30 apartments, 20,000
square feet of professional office space and approximately 1,600 square feet of retail.
The property is located on the east side of Fifth Avenue East between. 7Eh and 8th
Streets East.
Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff reports KZC-05-3 and
KPUD-05-3 evaluating the proposal. She noted that the PUD is predicated on the
zone change since the R-5 zone allows for professional offices. The zone change
allows some flexibility with regard to the development standards and in this case the
issues related to the proposal are neighborhood compatibility, mitigation of traffic
impacts and the overall intensity of the proposed project. The staff recommended
approval of the proposal subject to conditions.
During the public hearing the applicants explained their proposal, their vision for the
project and their desire to meet the needs of the neighborhood. Several people from
the neighborhood spoke in favor of the proposal because it preserved the historic
building and provides some predictability about the property. Several other people
from the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the proposal because of the density and
intensity of the use, issues related to parking and neighborhood compatibility.
The board discussed the proposal and considered the testimony. There was
considerable discussion regarding the density of the project, parking requirements,
access, impacts to the neighborhood and the status and condition of the building. A
motion was made to recommend to Kalispell City Council that the property be rezoned
R-5/PUD, Residential / Professional Office, subject to conditions as amended which
failed on a vote of three in favor and three opposed. The conditions that were
amended and considered by the Kalispell City Planning Board are outlined in
attached Exhibit A.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Courthouse East- Zone Change and PUD
May 9, 2005
Page 2
Please schedule this matter for the May 16, 2005 regular City Council meeting. You
may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any
questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely
Kalispell City Planning Board
George Taylor
President
GT/NW/ma
Attachments: Exhibit A - PUD Conditions of Approval
Staff report KZC-05-3 KPUD-05-3 and application materials
Draft minutes 4/ 19/05 planning board meeting
c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c w/o Att: DEV Properties, 665 Sullivan X Road, Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Gelinas Development, LLC, 237 Lakeshore Dr, Kalispell, MT 59901
Eric Berry, DEV, 665 Sullivan. X Road, Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Courthouse East - Zone Change and PUD
May 9, 2005
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
COURTHOUSE EAST -- REZONING AND PUD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS CONSIDERED BY THE
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 19, 2005
The Kalispell City Planning Board considered the following conditions for the above
other referenced planned unit development. A public hearing was held on this matter
at the regular meeting of the planning board of April 19, 2005.
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
application submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by
the city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same
as indicated on the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as
modified by these conditions.
3. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
designed and installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public
Works Department.
4. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department for compliance with the International Fire Code.
5. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation,
irrigation and maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free,
dust -free area until such time as that phase is fully developed.
6. A redesign of the parking lot be provided that includes a five foot perimeter
landscape buffer, is dimensionally accurate and incorporates some landscaping
within the parking lot design.
7. The number of dwellings shall be reduced by two to a maximum of 28 dwelling
units in order to comply with the limits of the R-5 zoning being requested.
8. The boulevard areas shall be landscaped in accordance with a plan that has
been reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation. Department.
9. The overall landscape plan shall be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and
Recreation Director regarding the exact size and location of the plantings and
species lists.
10. That sidewalks be provided as indicated on the site plan that provide a
continuous and connected system along the streets and avenues abutting this
site.
Courthouse East - Zone Change and PUD
May 9, 2005
Page 4
11. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes attractive lighting fixtures and a
type and level of lighting not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose.
12. That a comprehensive sign plan be submitted which indicates an integrated
design of lettering and materials. All signs shall comply with the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance.
13. The use of the artist studios are recognized as live / work units and it is
anticipated that some limited retail sales would be allowed on the premises.
However, no sales of items which are not produced on -site would be allowed
from the artists studios or other items that would be of a general retail nature.
14. That the refuse areas be adequately screened from public view.
15. The -phasing and timing of the develo ment shall occur as proosed. Bonding or
insurance for the full cost of the proposed infrastructure and improvements to
ensure the improvements will be completed as j2rgposed shall be provided b
the develo er.Tha�t the pha5ing and timing of the development she4l eeeur- as
PIC. of ins, ring that the improvements will be eempleted as
proposed shall be pr-evided by t1ae develeper-,
16. If the project is not substantially completed, or is abandoned, by December 2007
the citV has the option to use the collateral to remove the building and clear the
site.
17. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based
on terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
NW
COURTHOUSE EAST PROJECT
TRI-CITY PLANNING OFFICE
STAFF REPORT #KZC-05-3 AND KPUD-5-03
APRIL 12, 2005
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a
request for a change in zoning and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. A public
hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City Planning Board for April 19, 2005
beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will
forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a request for a zone change and PUD to allow
the redevelopment and reuse of the building known as Courthouse East, previously a
County office building and prior to that operated as a hospital. The building and
property occupy a full city block in Kalispell's East Side Historic District.
A. Petitioner and Owners:
Technical Assistance:
DEV Properties
665 Sullivan X Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(206)909-3398
Gelinas Development, LLC
237 Lakeshore Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-1569
Eric Berry
DEV Properties
665 Sullivan X Road
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(206) 214-5210
B. Nature of the Request:. This is a zone change request by DEV Properties that
has been filed concurrently with a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The PUD would function as an overlay for the proposed R-5, Residential j
Professional Office zoning. Currently the property is zoned R-3, Urban Single
Family Residential. The development proposal includes the restoration of the
approximately 65,000 square foot building, known as Courthouse East, for use
primarily as apartments and professional offices. The building and associated
properties cover exactly one city block. The Courthouse East building was
initially constructed in 1913 as a hospital and two subsequent additions were
made onto the original building; one in 1948 and one in 1964. The 1913 and
1948 portions of the building are four stories of brick construction. The 1964
addition is a two story building constructed of wood and brick. There was also a
small mechanical building that was approximately 2,600 square feet that was
removed as part of the initial clearing of the site that the applicant's would like to
reconstruct and reuse on the existing footprint. This building lies to the east of
the main four story structure. The building was sold at public auction in
approximately dune of 2003 and has not been occupied since. During that period
the building has been subject to deterioration and vandalism.
1
The developers are proposing a restoration and reuse of the building with the
reconstruction and restoration being done in phases. The project would be done
in three phases with the first phase being accomplished between June and
October of 2005 that would include the interior remodel of the building and
exterior treatments such as windows, painting and utility work. Between October
and December of 2005 the electrical, plumbing and 1 VAC would be completed.
Phase II would be done during January through December of 2006 and would
include the build out of tenant spaces, landscaping and other groundwork and
preliminary parking lot preparation. Phase III would be done between January
and December 2007 and would include completion of the interior finish work and
completion of the parking lot and landscaping work.
Essentially the proposal. includes 30 apartments of approximately 1,000 square
feet each, 20,000 square feet in professional office space, 1,600 square feet of
retail (coffee shop) and the remaining 11,000 square feet would be occupied with
storage, hallways, elevator area, lobby areas, stairs and utility service rooms.
There are two primary accesses into the property that currently exist at the north
and south center points of the property where an alley used to exist but has been
previously abandoned along Seventh Street East and Eighth Street East. An
additional, but less used access lies to the east of the building along Sixth Avenue
East. All of these accesses would be reestablished and improved with this project.
Additionally, new sidewalks would be installed around the perimeter of the site
as needed. Currently there is a deteriorating sidewalk along Eighth Street East
and Fifth Avenue East. There are no sidewalks along Seventh Street East or Sixth
Avenue East.
As proposed, there would be three different categories of apartments within the
building. Senior apartments would be provided primarily on the third and fourth
floor center wings although not formally designated or devoted to senior housing.
It is anticipated there would be eight to ten senior apartments. Artist studios
would be made available that would be small, medium and large in size that
would be intended to be used as a live / work space. These would likely consist
of eight to 12 units located primarily on the ground floor or in the north wing.
Eight to ten general apartments are anticipated to be located in the south wing.
Professional office space is planned to be located primarily on the second floors of
the center and south wing and all or part of the .north wing. It is anticipated that
20,000 square feet of the approximately 65,000 square foot building would be
devoted to professional office space.
Some retail space is included in the application that states it would be limited to
1,600 square feet either in the small outbuilding that is planned for
reconstructions or within the main building on the first floor. The application
described anticipated uses to potentially include hair and nail salon, spa, coffee
shop, local crafts and handmade clothing. The remaining approximately 11,000
square feet of the building would be devoted to a community room, storage,
hallways, lobbies, service areas and mechanical / utility rooms.
Parking for the building is located primarily along the eastern portion of the site
and the parking lot would need to be redeveloped and re -striped. There are also
plans for landscaping the parking lot and areas surrounding the building.
2
C. Location and Legal Description. of Property: The property being proposed for
the PUD is located between Fifth and Sixth Avenue East and Seventh and Eighth
Street East directly north of Cornelius Hedges Elementary School. The property
has frontage on all four sides and essentially includes one full city block and an
abandoned alley. The properties can be described as Lots 1 through 12, Block
203, Kalispell Addition 3 located in Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21.
West, P.M.M., flathead County, Montana.
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The site is currently occupied by the
deteriorating Courthouse East building and parking lot. The small mechanical
building that was previously located on the east side of the building has been torn
down, but the brick remains. The site has been fenced with chain link fencing to
avoid trespassing. Overall the building has been essentially abandoned for over
two years. Some initial work was started by the previous developer to remove
some of the interior fixtures, but no real progress cleaning up the site has been
made since its conveyance from the County to private parties.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Single family residential, City R-3 zoning
South: Cornelius Hedges Elementary School, City R-3 zoning
East: Medical offices (nonconforming uses), City R-3 zoning
West: Single family residential, City R-3 zoning
F. General Land Use Character: The general land use character of this area is a
mix of single family residential to the north and west, with the elementary school
lying to the south and some medical offices that existed since the time the
hospital operated lie to the east. This can be considered to be a well -established
residential area with good building integrity and stable property values.
G. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Natural. Gras:
NorthWestern Energy
Telephone:
CenturyTel
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
H. Relation to Zoning Requirements: The applicants are proposing a zone change
from R-3, a residential zoning district, to R-5, a residential and office zoning
district, with a PUD or planned unit development overlay. The PUD would allow
all of the permitted or conditionally permitted uses listed in the R-5 zoning district
with an emphasis on those specifically exempted in the application. The PUD
development proposal has some deviations from the R-5 zoning that relate to the
building height and size, The PUD mechanism has been used primarily in this
case to provide the neighborhood with assurances as to the number, type and
3
square foot devoted to each of the specific uses as well as the tinning of the
project. The R-5 zoning district does not allow multi -family dwellings per se such
as those being proposed in the building. It does allow professional offices as a
nermitterl 17fie The Tnii1ti-fami1y rlwellingc essentially are the nrimn;rily rlf-vintinn
from zoning under the proposed R-5 zoning.
Because the R-w5 zoning district is a Residential / Professional Office district, it
can be concluded that this development would be considered a mixed use PUD as
described in Section 27.21.030(3)(D). This section allows a mixed use PUD in any
district provided the adverse environmental and neighborhood impacts are
minimal and can be mitigated.
EVALUATION OF MO POSED PUD OVERLAY
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. and
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Findings of fact for the zone change request are
discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A and Section
27.30.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
1.. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy?
The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 Plan reap designates this property as Urban
Residential. The Urban Residential land use designation in the Kalispell Growth
Policy anticipates up to 12 dwellings per acre. One this approximately two acre
site, the maximum residential density anticipated would be approximately 24
dwellings. The proposed residential component of the PUD anticipates 28 to 30
dwellings, which is marginally higher than that which would be anticipated.
Additionally, the proposed office component of the R-5 zoning designation is not .
ns-i-in��-.nfwri i3rrlcr i-1a rrrn<—fl, 14— -F__ f4,J +o .+:.,
1-pr ee cix�. xLJliilg u.aea
associated with this building and historical land use patterns do not make the
proposed office component entirely unexpected or inappropriate for this area.
The proposed rezoning and PUD can be considered to be in marginal compliance
with the anticipated land uses for this area. However, the proposal does provide
housing options within the community that are interspersed with more traditional
housing types that could create a vibrancy and community ambience to the
neighborhood.
2. Is the requested zone desi.grned to lessen congestion in the streets?
This site has three existing accesses that will be upgraded for use to and from this
site. Two primary accesses are located on the north and south sides of the
property at the center of the site where the alley used to be located. These
accesses are from Seventh and Eighth Street East. An alternate but less used
access also lies to the east of the site from. Sixth Avenue East. There is no access
to the site from Fifth Avenue East, where the primary building frontage is located.
All of the streets in this area are two way streets that are considered local streets
and carry local neighborhood traffic. An exception to that might be Eighth Street
East that functions as a drop off and pick up area for Cornelius Hedges
Elementary School that lies to the south of this site. During peak time such as
before and after school during non -summer months there is traffic activity that is
not typical of the area and is not strictly local. Traffic entering and exiting the site
4
will likely use an exit / entrance on Seventh Street East or Eighth Street East
depending on the destination or traffic pattern.. The access to the east along Sixth
Avenue East will be traveled less frequently. Impacts to the area would be
primarily to the south in the area of Hedges School and to the north. Less to the
east where professional offices are located.
Although this project is not designed necessarily to lessen congestion in the
street, the traffic in the area appears to be able to be managed within the existing
accesses and with improved approaches to and from the site. Pedestrian access
will be addressed through the redevelopment of the sidewalks surrounding this
property and will provide not only a safety element but an alternate means of
transportation to residents in the area.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
The redevelopment of the site and building will ensure that the building will be
brought up to the existing applicable building, electrical, plumbing and fire codes.
There will be on --going inspections during the reconstruction process that will
insure that the public health and safety issues related to construction, emergency
access and fire safety are adequately addressed.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
A planned unit development proposal gives the public and administration the
opportunity to review the development plan on the site which should result in
better overall design, integration into the landscape and as an integration into the
neighborhood. Part of the development proposal includes the rehabilitation of the
existing building which to some residents of the community has historical value
and significance that warrants its preservation. Based on that premise, the
rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and reconstruction of the building will serve the
public health and welfare of the community by maintaining the historic
architecture and the integrity of an important building. The developer will be
obligated under the PUD agreement to utilize the building as is being proposed
and to provide the improvements to the site that are outlined in the application.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
The existing Courthouse East building exceeds the 35 foot height limit of the
proposed R-5 zoning district and of the current R-3 zoning district of 35 feet. The
applicants do not intend to alter the height of the building as part of the
redevelopment proposal. Additionally, any budding that was previously located
on the site will be reconstructed within the existing foundation. These buildings
will constitute the built environment on this property and will have a limited
impact on the light and air in the neighborhood. The existing impacts are in place
and have been in place with regard to these buildings. There would be no
additional impacts beyond those which are currently experienced that would
result from this proposal.
5
5. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration
of people?
Once fully developed the applicants would anticipate having approximately 28 to
30 dwelling units, approximately 20,000 square feet in professional office space
and some limited retail activity. Cruder the current and proposed zoning the
dwelling units exceed the density that would be anticipated by a slight margin. If
managed properly the traffic associated with the dwellings and the office space
would likely not exceed that which has been typical to this property in the past
when it was occupied by County offices. although there may be peak times
during the day in the morning and in the evenings when traffic patterns would be
at their highest, the overall impacts may be manageable and would be temporary
in nature. During the week -ends and in the evenings traffic and the
concentration of people would be limited.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate_ provision of transportation water,
sewerage, schools, parks,__and other public requirements?
City water, sewer and storm drain systems currently exist to serve the site. There
are fully developed City streets and there is a park and school in the immediate
vicinity of this site. Fire and police services will also be required to service the
site which will require fire safety improvements that will include improvements to
the water system, hydrants and sprinkled buildings, for example. The location of
this development in relation to the City fire department is a relatively short
distance and response times to the site would be short. It appears that the
adequate provision of public services should be further and more fully assessed.
8. Does the requested zone ive consideration to the particular suitabilitv of the
property for particular uses?
One of the primary advantages to this development proposal is the adaptive reuse
of the existing Courthouse East building, which to some is considered an
important historical piece of architecture. The redevelopment of the site and
adaptive reuse of the building provide some predictability to the neighborhood on
the kind of uses that will go into the building and the level and intensity of those
uses. From a purely practical standpoint, the redevelopment and reuse of this
site would demand that the level of uses and intensity of use that is being
proposed is necessary in order to make it economically feasible. However, also
from a purely practical standpoint, parking for the site is limited and only
marginally complies with the standards for parking that would be required for the
office and residential uses.
Because of the intensity of uses proposed for the site, limited green space is
possible and no outdoor recreational space has been provided. Some non -
designated community room interior to the building for use by the residents and
tenants of the building was listed in the application but no further specific
information was provided.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
6
district?
The character of the area is a mix of uses with the school directly to the south,
no" -�nnfnrrninss nffinw hii lcling-- to the aafit thnt are a irPctigt- of xxrhPrj this,
building operated as a hospital and to the west and to the north, a well -
established residential neighborhood with good historical integrity and a high
quality of homes. This building does not fit well into this context of the
neighborhood because of its size and scale and the potential for high impacts
associated with residential density and the professional offices. These impacts
could be mitigated in part by insuring there is a high level of redevelopment and
quality associated with the building as well as a high level of maintenance and
management of the building once the rehabilitation is complete.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The redevelopment of this site and rehabilitation of this building would likely have
a positive effect on the value of buildings in the area compared to the site in its
existing condition. A high quality of construction associated with the
rehabilitation and reuse of the building would insure that property values are
maintained and enhanced. It is difficult to determine whether the property values
would be further enhanced with the removal of this building and the construction
of one or two unit residential dwellings on the property.
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the jurisdiction.?
Provided this building would be rehabilitated and reused as opposed to being
removed, the proposed uses for the site are practical and would be appropriate to
ai c S. +c n to +I'- T-.";IA— IN— -1-r�r.-A err f .-i--T--,•.---+ 4M . fr nnrrvo
L11L w1LL4 alit LV E114 3.1 URIlRli1�. ARID /iG111114 U. 3..1,111E ca, t.v41Vx1111411L VVIII V1141 •]Ville
predictability as to how and when this property would be developed, the uses that
would be anticipated and the way in which the property would be managed.
Provided this building stays, it appears that this rezoning would encourage the
most appropriate use of this property and the use of land in the planning
jurisdiction..
EVALUATION OF THE PLANNER UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Project Narrative:. This narrative is essentially a reiteration of the introduction in this
staff report. The Courthouse East project that is currently being considered is being
presented as a planned unit development along with a zone change from R-3, single
family residential, to R-5, a residential / office zone. This zoning would allow some
additional density plus would allow the offices as a permitted use in the zone. These
requests have been filed concurrently. The PUD would function as an overlay for the
proposed R-5, Residential / Professional Office, zoning. Currently the property is zoned
R-3, Urban Single Farnily Residential. The development proposal includes the
restoration of the approximately 65,000 square foot building, known as Courthouse
East, for use primarily as apartments and professional offices. The building and
associated properties covers exactly one city block. The Courthouse East building was
initially constructed in 1913 as a hospital and two subsequent additions were made onto
the original building; one in 1948 and one in 1964. The 1913 and 1948 portions of the
building are four stories of brick construction. The 1964 addition is a two story building
7
constructed of wood and brick. There was also a small mechanical building that was
approximately 2,600 square feet that was removed as part of the initial clearing of the
site that the applicant's would like to reconstruct and reuse on the existing footprint.
This building lies to the east of the main four story structure. The building was sold at
public auction in approximately June of 2003 and has not been occupied since. During
that period the building has been subject to deterioration and vandalism.
The developers are proposing a restoration and reuse of the building with the
reconstruction and restoration being done in phases. The project would be done in
three phases with the first phase being accomplished between June and October of 2005
that would include the interior remodel of the building and exterior treatments such as
windows, painting and utility work. Between October and December of 2005 the
electrical, plumbing and HVAC would be completed. Phase II would be done during
January through December of 2006 and would include the build out of tenant spaces,
landscaping and other groundwork and preliminary parking lot preparation. Phase III
would be done between January and December 2007 and would include completion of
the interior finish work and completion of the parking lot and landscaping work.
Essentially the proposal includes 30 apartments of approximately 1,000 square feet
each, 20,000 square feet in professional office space, 1,600 square feet of retail (coffee
shop) and the remaining 11,000 square feet would be occupied with storage, hallways,
elevator area, lobby areas, stairs and utility service rooms. There are two primary
accesses into the property that currently exist at the north and south center points of
the property where an alley used to exist but has been previously abandoned along
Seventh Street East and Eighth Street East An additional, but less used access lies to
the east of the building along Sixth Avenue East. All of these accesses would be
reestablished and improved with this project. Additionally, new sidewalks would be
installed around the perimeter of the site as needed. Currently there is a deteriorating
sidewalk along Eighth Street East and Fifth Avenue East. There are no sidewalks along
Seventh Street East or Sixth Avenue East.
As proposed, there would be three different categories of apartments within the building.
Senior apartments would be provided primarily on the third and fourth floor center wing
although not formally designated or devoted to senior housing. It is anticipated there
would be eight to ten senior apartments. Artist studios would be made available that
would be small, medium and large in size that would be intended to be used as a live /
work space. These would likely consist of eight to 12 units located primarily on the
ground floor or in the north wing. Eight to ten general apartments are anticipated to be
located in the south wing.
Professional office space is planned to be located primarily on the second floors of the
center and south wing and all or part of the north wing. It is anticipated that 20,000
square feet of the approximately 65,000 square foot building would be devoted to
professional office space.
Some retail space is included in the application that states it would be limited to 1,600
square feet either in the small outbuilding that is planned for reconstruction or within
the main building on the first floor. The application described anticipated uses to
potentially include hair and nail salon., spa, coffee shop, local crafts and handmade
clothing. The remaining approximately 11,000 square feet of the building would be
devoted to a community room, storage, hallways, lobbies, service areas and mechanical
M
/ utility roorns.
Parking for the building is located primarily along the eastern portion of the site and the
parking lot would need to be redeveloped and re -striped. There are also plans for
landscaping the parking lot and areas surrounding the building.
There has been significant controversy and discussion with residents of the
neighborhood regarding the merits of saving this building, redeveloping the site and the
types of uses that are appropriate for this setting and within the neighborhood context.
This building is located in the heart of a historically significant residential area that has
homes of good architectural quality and integrity. In the past the Courthouse East
building functioned as a County office building and as a hospital with general
acceptance of the neighborhood. However, since this building was sold to a private land
holder it has deteriorated significantly, become an eyesore with health hazards and has
generally presented a dilemma to the community as to the best way of dealing with the
building. Different individuals in the neighborhood hold differing views on what the best
use of this property will ultimately be.
Criteria for the Creation of a Planned Unit Development JPUDJ District
The fallowing information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the planned unit development provisions are
to provide a zoning district classification which allows some flexibility in the zoning
regulations and the mixing of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and
enhancing the integrity and environmental values of an area.
Review of Application Based U on PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations
provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the
following criteria:
1. 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;
The planned unit development deviates from the zoning with the existing building
exceeding the currently and proposed height limit of 35 feet. The existing building is
probably closer to 45 feet in height and is an existing four story building on the south
and center wing. Some screening roof mounted equipment may add slightly to this
height. Since this is an existing building and not new construction it would be
considered to be non -conforming with regard to the height.
A minor deviation from the zoning deals with the density that is being proposed for
residential units. Under the proposed R-5 zoning the maximum density is 14 units per
acre or a total of 28 units for the site. The developers are proposing approximately 30
dwelling units. However, eight to 12 of those units would be artist studios that would
have a live / work component and may or may not be considered strictly residential in
nature. The non-residential nature of the artist studios could be considered to have a
greater impact than the strictly residential use of the apartments because of increased
day time visitation to the site.
9
Parking for the development is marginally adequate. It appears there is a total of
approximately 118 parking spaces which includes the loading space. Multi -family
dwellings are required to have parking at a ratio 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit with the
overflow parking being allowed to park on the street. In this circumstance, the 30
dwellings generates a need for 75 parking spaces. On -street overflow parking does not
prove to be feasible in this instance because of the potential impacts to traffic flow,
neighborhood character and general traffic circulation in the area. The streets in this
area are generally 24 feet wide which does not typically accommodated parking on one
side. It should be noted however, that parking is allowed on the east side of Fifth
Avenue East and it appears that approximately 25 vehicles might be accommodate in
this area. Another 50 parking spaces are generated from the 20,000 square feet in
professional office space. Retail generates a need of one space per 200 square feet. An
additional eight spaces would be generated from the proposed 1,600 square feet of retail
proposed. There is additional square footage in the building that is not generally
accommodated in these parking calculations that are in the area of hallways, lobbies,
storage, utility room, community room and other miscellaneous spaces that equates to
approximately 11,000 square feet.
There is a couple of different ways this excess space could be accounted for. One would
be to consider it part of the building amenities and determine that the parking
requirements for the residential uses and the office uses would anticipate these spaces
and not require additional parking. Conversely, the 11,000 square feet could be
included in the parking calculation requirements for professional office space at a ratio
of one per 400 square feet. This would generate a need for an additional 28 parking
spaces. There are probably other alternatives to these parking calculations, but these
appear to be the most obvious.
Parking would essentially be as follows: Residential would require 60 on site parking
spaces plus 15 overflow spaces on the street or on site. Professional office would require
50 parking spaces, plus 8 for the retail which generates a necessary total on -parking
requirement of 118 parking spaces: exactly the number of spaces provided on site. if
additional parking is required on site with the 15 overflow residential and the additional
28 for the "extra' square footage an additional 43 spaces would be required for a total of
161 parking spaces.
In addition to the deficiency in the overall number of parking spaces, the parking lot
design should have a five foot perimeter landscape buffer in order to comply with zoning.
The zoning requires that a five foot green landscape buffer be required between the
parking and the lots lines. This requirement would further diminish the amount of
available parking.
2. 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;
Open space is defined in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as "Any part of a lot
unobstructed from the ground upward. Any area used for parking or maneuvering of
automotive vehicles or storage of equipment or refuse shall not be deemed open space.,'
Open space has been indicated on the site plan as the landscape areas around the
10
building. Additional landscaping along the boulevard areas that would be replanted and
redeveloped are off -site but add to the attractiveness and appeal of the site. The plan for
the maintenance of the common area / open space area which is essentially the
landscaped area would be provided by the owners of the building and would not be the
tenants responsibility. Perimeter landscaping is proposed along streets and avenues
with very little internal landscaping in the parking lot. Tree types and caliper were not
specified in the application. Kalispell's Street Tree Ordinance requires spacing of trees
at 40 foot intervals with a two and a quarter inch caliper tree. All trees should be a
minimum of two and a quarter inch caliper at planting. The overall landscape plan
should be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director for the exact
placement and species of the trees within the parameters outlined in the application and
conditions of approval.
Because of the intensity of uses and density on the site there is essentially no room that
can be provided as a recreational open space component and limited open space that
can be provided outside of the landscape areas around the building.
3. 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;
Public water and sewer have served the site in the past and the reconnection and
reestablishment of these utilities to the site is proposed as part of the development
proposal. Stormwater drainage is intended to be handled on site and there are storm
drains existing within the parking lot as indicated on the application. There may be
some concerns about the long term viability and functionality of these systems especially
in association with the redevelopment of this site which will have a higher percentage of
fine particulate matter that can render these systems ineffective within a relatively short
period of time.
Traffic is proposed to be handled by having three accesses onto Seventh and Eighth
Street East and Sixth Avenue East. These are existing accesses that would be
redeveloped and restriped. There may be other traffic mitigation measures that can be
taken and coordinated through the City of Kalispell and the public works department
that could minimize impacts to the neighborhood has a whole.
Internal traffic is proposed to be handled primarily through the parking lot on the east
side of the building with one way traffic to maximize the parking on the site. The overall
design of the main parking lot leaves some questions regarding the viability and traffic
movements in some areas. This parking plan will need to be refined prior to final
approval in order to demonstrate that the lot is dimensionally accurate and that traffic
flows as indicated are viable.
Open space and / or a usable outdoor recreation area or park area on the site is lacking.
There is a park within close proximity to this site to the south east and the school yard
to the south provides some limited recreational opportunities.
11
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
Redevelopment of the existing building into this mixed use project may benefit the
community and neighborhood by filling a perceived need within the community for this
type of a development. The greatest adverse impacts to the neighborhood would be
related to increased traffic from the site and the creation of a highly visible, large scale
building in a well established residential setting. The impacts of this development can
be mitigated to a certain extent with extensive landscaping, good site design and internal
circulation, the limitation on certain uses allowed within the site such as only
professional offices and very limited retail. Staff would recommend that such
landscaping and limitation of uses be included in the conditions of approval.
6. 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
This development is proposed to occur in eight phases over two or three years. A bond
could be placed with the City of Kalispell for the completion of this project to ensure that
it is brought to fruition once initiated, if the City were to deem that an appropriate
course of action. Typically, there is a development agreement signed between the City of
Kalispell and the developer to ensure that certain standards and tinning mechanism be
met. These issues should be more fully addressed in the development agreement. No
bonding or collateral for the improvements to this site has been proposed within the
application that was submitted.
6. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
No other specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance can be identified based
upon the information submitted with the application.
Summary. Some significant issues related to the zoning that may increase the impacts
to the neighborhood have not been thoroughly resolved or fully addressed. A primary
concern is related to parking with an essential deficit in on -site parking. Some parking
may be allowed on the street, but this creates further and possible unacceptable impacts
to the neighborhood. The parking deficit is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 50
spaces depending on how the parking is calculated. Additionally, the parking lot design
does not comply with zoning in that it lacks a five foot perimeter landscape area between
the property boundaries and the parking lot. This would further diminish the available
parking on -site. A more detailed parking plan that demonstrates it is dimensionally
accurate should be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. The one way
traffic and size of the parking stalls and back-up space are questionable in some areas
as to whether they are truly functional and comply with zoning.
The residential density being proposed at 30 dwellings exceeds what is allowed under
the R-5 PUD zoning by two units. The artist studios included in the residential units
pose some issues that are unique in that they could potentially have a greater impact
with regard to traffic since visits to the site would are greater than a standard dwelling
unit. The number of dwellings should be reduced by two in order to comply with the
PUD standards for this zoning district.
12
Furthermore, the professional office space and undefined retail component of the
development adds additional non-residential uses in this area that are potentially
intensive and beyond ghat would be considered an acceptable level of activity. The lack
of open space and recreational amenities for the project also creates pressures on the
local park and open spaces that are in the neighborhood.
The impacts associated with this development are atypical to those found in a strictly
residential setting. However, the historical use of this property was not residential and
the impacts associated with the previous use have been anticipated by the residents of
the neighborhood. Some of the residents find intrinsic value in restoring, rehabilitating
and reusing the Courthouse East building while other believe it is a blight to the
neighborhood and should be removed and single family or two unit townhouses should
be put in its place. This planned unit development has given the neighborhood the
opportunity to comment and participate in the outcome of the development or
redevelopment of this site and to assess the overall impacts to their neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board consider the adoption of staff
report KZC-05-3 J KPUD-05-3 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City
Council that the zone change and PUD overlay be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
application submitted, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the
city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same as
indicated on the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as modified
by these conditions.
3. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
designed and installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public
Works Department.
4. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department for compliance with the International Fire Code.
5. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation,
irrigation and maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free, dust -
free area until such time as that phase is fully developed.
d. A redesign of the parking lot be provided that includes a five foot perimeter
landscape buffer, is dimensionally accurate and incorporates some landscaping
within the parking lot design.
7. The number of dwellings shall be reduced by two to a maximum of 28 dwelling
,units in order to comply with the limits of the R-5 zoning being requested.
13
S. The boulevard areas shall be landscaped in accordance with a plan that has been
reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department.
9. The overall landscape plan shall be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and
Recreation Director regarding the exact size and location of the plantings and
species lists.
10. That sidewalks be provided as indicated on the site plan that provide a continuous
and connected system along the streets and avenues abutting this site.
11. That a lighting plan be submitted which utilizes attractive lighting fixtures and a
type and level of lighting not exceeding what is appropriate for its purpose.
12. That a comprehensive sign plan be submitted which indicates an integrated design
of lettering and materials. All signs shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
13. The use of the artist studios are recognized as live / work units and it is
anticipated that some limited retail sales would be allowed on the premises.
However, no sales of items which are not produced on -site would be allowed from
the artists studios or other items that would be of a general retail nature.
14. That the refuse areas be adequately screened from public view.
15. That the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding
for the proposed infrastructure and improvements or other acceptable means of
insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by
the developer.
16. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based
on terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
H\_.\KPUD\05\ ZC-d5-2./ KPUD-05-3
14
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second St East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 'T51-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858
PETITION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
CITY OF KALISPELL
NAME OF APPLICANT: DEV Properties
MAIL ADDRESS: 665 Sullivan X Road
CITY/STATE/ZIP: CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Falls, Mt 59912 PHONE: 206-909-3398
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: DEV Properties is a Buy/Sell of the property to develop it
along with a PUD Proposal
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Address of the property: 723 5th Ave E Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Legal Description: (Subdivision Name, Lot & Block and/or Tract Number
(Section, Township, Range) KAL ADD 3 LOTS 1-12 BLK 203 TR A 1N SE4NW4 ABD
ALLEY Sn 17 Tn 28 Rn 21
(Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
C. Laud in zone change (ac) 2.063 acres
D. The present zoning of the above property is: R3
E. The proposed zoning of the above property is: R5
F. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment
necessary:
A concurrent PUD proposal for the existing structure commonly known as "COURTHOUSE Ei
would allow for an unkempt structure to be refurbished into a viable community asset. DEV
has entered into a Buy/Sell agreement with current owner Gelinas Development; which alonE
change of ownership, change in direction of the said structure would also occur. Current an(
historical Nan -Conforming use would be irrelevant and said structure would be used to serve
community, city and county.
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED CHANGE ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF:
A. Promoting the Growth Policy
The plans contained within. this Application meet many of the Kalispell's Growth polici€
The following are excerpts from the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020:
February 18, 2003
2. Growth Management
Issues:
5. Low -density development in outlying areas has been the predominant local growth
pattern of recent decades creating inefficiencies in providing services. For example in
1960, 77 percent of the residents within the growth policy area lived in Kalispell, but by
2000, the proportion had fallen to 49 percent. Factors in this urban to suburban shift
include national trends toward suburban and rural growth, the appeal of the Flathead
Valley's rural setting and a variety of public policies that have made suburban and rural
development more attractive than concentrated urban development.
6. Finding ways of making infiil growth more attractive and economical is necessary to
equalize the trend toward low -density development. Along with the predominant growth
pattern of low -density development, there has also been a trend towards reinvestment and
redevelopment of land in established urban areas, drawn by convenience, variety, stable
neighborhoods and small-town quality of life. There are more traditional development
patterns associated with this trend and they differ from suburban design with regard to
density, development standards and uses.
7. Increasing land and home values have created problems in providing adequate
affordable housing in large sectors of the community. Wages have not kept pace with
these rising costs leaving some with marginal housing options
GOALS:
1. ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, ORDERLY GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH
HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, FISCAL SOUNDNESS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND
COMMUNITY VITALITY.
3. ENCOURAGE HOUSING TYPES THAT PROVIDE HOUSING FOR ALL SECTORS AND
INCOME LEVELS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
6. PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREAS FOR GROWTH AND EXPANSION WITH REGARD TO
AMOUNT, TIMING AND LOCATION.
Policies:
1. Encourage resolution of disputes involving land use policy by broad participation:,
education, compromise and consideration of private property rights. Maintain
mechanisms to provide for open, well -publicized public processes.
2. Encourage consistent government policies for development and infrastructure within
urban areas.
3. Conserve well -established residential areas that have significant neighborhood and
cultural integrity, such as Kalispell's historic districts.
S. Land Use: Housing
...There is also a need for more diverse housing types such as townhomes, multi -family
and accessory dwellings to accommodate smaller households.
Issues:
3. Kalispell has a high proportion of seniors with special needs. While most local housing
consists of single-family detached houses, demand is growing for a mix of housing types,
such as more one -person households, assisted living housing for seniors, townhouses,
apartment buildings, accessory apartments and second homes.
GOALS:
1. PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY AND MIX OF HOUSING THAT MEETS THE NEEDS
OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF COST, TYPE, DESIGN AND
LOCATION.
Policies:
4. Give special consideration to functional design to accommodate seniors and disabled,
who have various special needs regarding housing, transportation, handicapped access
and services.
10. Urban Residential:
a. Urban residential areas shown on the plan map should be encouraged to be developed
when adequate services and facilities are available.
b. Typical densities are four to twelve dwellings per gross acre.
c. Single-family houses are the primary housing type, but duplexes, guesthouses,
accessory apartments, and small dispersed areas of multi -family housing are also
anticipated.
d. Urban and high density residential areas should be fully served by urban infrastructure
and municipal services, including paved streets, curbs, sidewalks, landscaped boulevards
and public sewer and water.
e. These areas should have convenient access to neighborhood business districts, parks
and elementary schools.
Recommendations:
b. Develop a comprehensive sidewalk system in the community that includes the
installation of new sidewalks and replacement of existing deteriorating sidewalks. Install
crosswalk improvements where appropriate.
S. Urban Design, .historic and Cultural Conservation
GOALS:
4. NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE
AND ITS ATTRACTIVENESS AS A RETIREMENT AND TOURISM DESTINATION.
Policies:
2. Identify historic and cultural resources, and encourage the upkeep and rehabilitation of
historically and culturally significant structures and sites, consistent with national
rehabilitation guidelines.
3. Discourage the demolition of historically or culturally significant structures and sites.
4. Support the efforts of private owners and conservation groups to identify, protect,
rehabilitate, and reuse historic and cultural resources.
Recommendations:
1. Establish a local heritage commission to identify local landmarks, review alterations of
these landmarks, expand public outreach and education and further historical and
cultural conservation goals.
2. Encourage development of alternative arterials that will divert through traffic from the
downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Enhance safe pedestrian access through the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods.
S. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access
A proposal for traffic flow and possible encouraged routes of travel take into
consideration the following factors:
Hedges Elementary School
Existing residences and business
Proximity to arterials
A joint effort between community, city and DEV Properties will be needed to
develop the most desirable traffic flows and parking. The is little question
that there will be increased traffic; the question should be, "How can traffic
be managed as it grows at the rate and pace of the expected growth of the
neighborhood, city and county?' Managed growth along the lines of the
Kalispell growth policy infers more residences, in turn more people, in turn
more vehicles.
Proximities to parks, schools and local businesses will encourage walking
traffic. Along with pedestrian friendly sidewalks, seating, landscaping and
lighting; DEV Properties hopes to promote a community who feels safely at
ease to wally and ride so as to enjoy their neighborhood.
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers
A safety plan outlining easy access to fire lazes and emergency parking, access to fire
hydrants, emergency access and egress, safe routes and safe places will be established
within the construction timeline. Proper signage will be posted for both public and private
knowledge and understanding. Safety meetings amongst staff, tenants, residents and
owners will be an ongoing and continual process. Safety standards continually progress
as will the safety plan.
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare
One of this projects main goals is to promote public interest along the lines of community
open spaces, public benches, walking routes, coffee shop gathering area, community
events and stronger, safer neighborhoods. This should help shape the positive welfare
and future of the historic Eastside and of Kalispell.
E. Preventing the overcrowding of laud
As outlined in the PUD, the number of units has been preliminarily determined within a
reasonable degree. Exact percentage and use will be determined during construction and
layouts of interiors. Overcrowding and sprawl will be lessened due to the fact that there
will be less need to build on rural land. The need for unregulated `garage mother-in-law'
apartments, which are currently being constructed, could be lessened.
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population
The size and nature of the building lends itself to allowing a moderate number of units to
be placed within a city block. Ample parking and access allow for open spaces and
landscaping.
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, grater, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities
Because it is an existing structure, all services are existing and would possibly only need
upgrades. Impact would be minimal compared to another `in city' developments trying to
meet the needs of the Growth Policy. After construction, a cohesive, unobtrusive
neighborhood will establish itself for years to come.
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district
The nature of the project primarily takes into account the Eastside's historical make-up.
Not only does the building meld with the neighborhood, but also, it would promote the
character of the historic district.
T. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses
Considering the mix of ages within the Eastside itself, a need for apartments has been
established for peoples of all ages. Not only is there a longtime resident population who is
aging and would like to remain within their neighborhood; but also the Valley has an
appeal to the aging as a place to retire. Ironically, the same attributes which draw retiring
ones, also draws younger ones. The valley's activities and natural beauty beacon an
eclectic mix. One way this would be promoted is with live/work artist studios.
Recognizing the past and accepting the future requires a unique set of circumstances in
order for the two to grow together. It is DEV Properties' belief that the Courthouse East
Project is that setting.
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings
Another main goal of the Project is to protect and conserve the value of the Courthouse
East building. It could not fall in line any more parallel to this objective.
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
This project will allow for, and maintain an orderly growth within it's outlined limits. It's
proposed use makes efficient use of the property and assures orderly growth because of
it's proposed limits_
The signing of this application signifies approval for Tri-City Planning staff to be
present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval
process.
�,/,�— 2 1 - e,
(Applicant gignature) T � � (mate)
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second St East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858
CITY OF KALISPELL
APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PROJECT NAME: Courthouse East Project
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: DEV Properties
2. MAIL ADDRESS: 665 Sullivan X Road
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Falls, Mt 59912 PHONE. 206-909-3398
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT:
4. NAME: Gelinas Development LLC
5. MAIL ADDRESS: 237 Lakeshore Dr
6. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, Mt 59901 PHONE: 406-257- 1569
7. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: DEV Properties - Eric Berry
S. MAIL ADDRESS: 665 Sullivan X Road
9. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Falls, Mt 59912 PHONE: 206-214--5210
If there are others who should be notified during the review process, please list those.
Check One:
X Initial PUD proposal
Amendment to an existing PUD
A. Property Address: 723 5th Ave Kalispell, Mt 59901
B. Total Area of Property: 2.063 AC.
C. Legal description including section, township &grange: KAL ADD 3 LOTS 1-12 BLK
203 TR A IN SE4NW4 ABD ALLEY Sn 17 Tn 28 Rn 21
D. The present zoning of the above property is: R-33
a. An overall description of the goals and objectives for the development of the
project.
To restore the property located at 728 5th East to a viable and usable property and to make it
an asset to the community. The usage classifications of the building will be comprised of
Dwelling units, Professional space and, Retail space. Within these designations, there will be
Artist Live/Work Apartments, Designed Apartments to meet Senior Resident needs, Standard
Apartments, and Community and Common Space. Space allocations will be :.Wade for Public
and Private Artwork and Sculptures. Also, a build out to accommodate a retail Coffee Shop.
b. In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule
showing the time within phase will be completed.
PRASE I
This is the primary phase of the project and it will be comprised of the following and
will be conducted within the time frame of June -Jan 2005.
Work planned to be accomplished during June -Oct 2005:
) Demolition of interior of building will be conducted.
2) Exterior treatments (pressure washing, painting, window restoration,
Utilities and grounds preparation)
Work planned to be accomplished during Oct -Dec 2005
I) Installation of systems within the building (electrical, plumbing, HVAC)
) Continuation of window restoration/replacement and exterior restorations
PHASE II
This is the work to be completed during Jan -Dec 2006
1) Build out new tenant spaces within interior of building according to specs
TBD .
2) Initial Landscaping and Ground work
3) Preliminary parking prep
PHASE III
This work is to be completed during Jan -Dec 2007
1) Finalizing of interior trim outs in all spaces.
2) Finalizing of Parking lot, striping, landscaping and signage
c. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations
including but not limited to density, setbacks and use, and the reasons
why such departures are or are not deemed to he in the public interest;
The nature of this building will add to the cohesiveness of the Historical East Side
neighborhood. Although it departs from the neighborhoods architecture in physical size and
nature, the building is an integral part of the neighborhood. It has existed prior to the
majority of the neighboring houses and is an integral part of Kalispell's history.
The proposed usage of the building departs form the historical usage in that it will be used as
a mixed use of residential units, artist studios, professional space and retail space while
allowing community events to take place.
The restoration of the building would retain a historic building in a historic neighborhood. It
would be restored to a. useful nature. It would also serve as an asset to the neighborhood in
many aspects. It would provide housing to seniors that would like to remain in the
neighborhood. It would provide space for local artists to produce their work for the people of
the neighborhood and tourists of the city of Kalispell. It would provide space for local
business's that would provide needed services to the neighborhood and city. With offices,
residences, shops and common areas providing services to the neighborhood, it would have a
uniting effect.
d. The nature and extent of the common open space in the project and the
provisions for maintenance and conservation of the common open space;
and the adequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms
of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan;
The following is the amount of green space provided within the property surrounding
the Courthouse East Building:
1) Public green space 11,896sq ft
2) Private green space 16,396sq ft
e. The manner in which services will be provided such as water, sewer, storm,
water management, schools, roads, traffic management, pedestrian access,
recreational facilities and other applicable services and utilities.
The Utilities are pre-existing but have been disconnected from the building. Such
utilities will be reconnected in the manor they were disconnected. Utility connections
will be upgraded as deemed necessary.
f. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established
Due to the results of a survey conducted on February 21st 2005 presentation held at
Hedges School; +85% of survey respondents supported the preservation of the
Courthouse East building and thought positive of the project being in the
neighborhood.
g. How the plan, provides reasonable consideration to the character of the
neighborhood and the peculiar suitability of the property for the proposed
use.
The structure is an integral part of the character of the neighborhood. It is a Historic
building that has had a part in setting the stage for the historic and architectural
aesthetics of the neighborhood. Though the proposed usage is set apart from the
historic usage of the property it is considered to be in line with the neighborhoods
character and Kalispell's future and growth policy.
h. Where there are more intensive uses or incompatible uses planned within the
project or on the project boundaries, how with the impacts of those uses
be mitigated.
N/A
i. How the development plan will further the goals, policies and objectives of the
Kalispell Growth Policy.
The plans contained within this Application meet many of the Kalispell's Growth
policies.
The following are excerpts from the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020:
February 18, 2003
2. Growth Management
Issues:
5. Low -density development in outlying areas has been the predominant local
growth pattern of recent decades creating inefficiencies in providing services.
For example in 1960, 77 percent of the residents within the growth policy area
lived in Kalispell, but by 2000, the proportion had fallen to 49 percent. Factors
in this urban to suburban shift include national trends toward suburban and
rural growth, the appeal of the Flathead Valley's rural setting and a variety of
public policies that have made suburban and rural development more attractive
than concentrated urban development.
6. Finding ways of making infall growth more attractive and economical is
necessary to equalize the trend toward lour -density development. Along with the
predominant growth pattern of low -density development, there has also been a
trend towards reinvestment and redevelopment of land in established urban
areas, drawn by convenience, variety, stable neighborhoods and small-town
quality of life. There are more traditional development patterns associated with
this trend and they differ from suburban design with regard to density,
development standards and uses.
7. Increasing land and home values have created problems in providing
adequate affordable housing in large sectors of the community. Wages have not
kept pace with these rising costs leaving some with marginal housing options
GOALS:
1. ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, ORDERLY GROWTH
CONSISTENT WITH HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, FISCAL SOUNDNESS,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITY VITALITY.
3. ENCOURAGE HOUSING TYPES THAT PROVIDE HOUSING FOR ALL
SECTORS AND INCOME LEVELS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
6. PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREAS FOR GROWTH AND EXPANSION WITH
REGARD TO AMOUNT, TIMING AND LOCATION.
Policies:
1. Encourage resolution of disputes involving land use policy by broad
participation, education, compromise and consideration of private property
rights. Maintain mechanisms to provide for open., well -publicized public
processes.
2. Encourage consistent government policies for development and
infrastructure within urban areas.
3. Conserve well -established residential areas that have significant
neighborhood and cultural integrity, such as Kalispell's historic districts.
3. Land Use: Housing
...There is also a need for more diverse housing types such as town -homes,
multi -family and accessory dwellings to accommodate smaller households.
Issues:
3. Kalispell has a high proportion of seniors with special needs. While most
local housing consists of single -.family detached houses, demand is growing for
a mix of housing types, such as more one -person households, assisted living
housing for seniors, townhouses, apartment buildings, accessory apartments
and second homes.
GOALS:
1. PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY AND MIX OF DOUSING THAT MEETS
THE NEEDS OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF COST,
TYPE, DESIGN AND LOCATION.
Policies:
4. Give special consideration to functional design to accommodate seniors and
disabled, who have various special needs regarding housing, transportation,
handicapped access and services.
10. Urban Residential:
a. Urban residential areas shown on the plan map should be encouraged to be
developed when adequate services and facilities are available.
b. Typical densities are four to twelve dwellings per gross acre.
c. Single-family houses are the primary housing type, but duplexes, guest
houses, accessory apartments, and small dispersed areas of multi -family
housing are also anticipated.
d. Urban and high density residential areas should be fully served by urban
infrastructure and municipal services, including paved streets, curbs,
sidewalks, landscaped boulevards and public sewer and water.
e. These areas should have convenient access to neighborhood business
districts, parks and elementary schools.
Recommendations:
6. Develop a comprehensive sidewalk system in the community that includes
the installation of new sidewalks and replacement of existing deteriorating
sidewalks. Install crosswalk improvements where appropriate.
8. Urban Design, Historic and Cultural Conservation
GOALS:
4. NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY
QUALITY OF LIFE AND ITS ATTRACTIVENESS AS A RETIREMENT AND
TOURISM DESTINATION.
Policies:
2. Identify historic and cultural resources, and encourage the upkeep and
rehabilitation of historically and culturally significant structures and sites,
consistent with national rehabilitation guidelines.
3. Discourage the demolition of historically or culturally significant structures
and sites.
4. Support the efforts of private owners and conservation groups to identify,
protect, rehabilitate, and reuse historic and cultural resources.
�ecozuuienaa�.�vns:
1. Establish a local heritage commission to identify local landmarks, review
alterations of these landmarks, expand public outreach and education and
further historical and cultural conservation goals.
2. Encourage development of alternative arterials that will divert through traffic
from the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Enhance safe pedestrian access through the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods.
j. Include site plans, drawings and schematics with supporting narratives where
needed that includes the following information:
(1). Total acreage and present zoning classifications;
f2). Zoning classification of all adjoining properties;
(3). Density in dwelling units per gross acre;
(4). Location, size height and number of stories for buildings and uses
proposed for buildings;
(5). Layout and dimensions of streets, parking areas, pedestrian
walkways and surfacing;
(6). Vehicle, emergency and pedestrian access, traffic circulation and
control;
(7). Location, size, height, color and materials of signs;
(8). Location and height of fencing and j or screening;
(9). Location and type of landscaping;
(10). Location and type of open space and common areas;
(11). Proposed maintenance of common areas and open space;
(12). Property boundary locations and setback lines
(13). Special design standards, materials and / or colors;
(14). Proposed schedule of completions and phasing of the development,
if applicable;
(IS). Covenants, conditions and restrictions;
(16). Any other information that may be deemed relevant and appropriate
to allow for adequate review.
SEE THE ATTACHED: PLAN VIEW, DETAILED TRAFFIC PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN,
OVERALL TRAFFIC PLAN, WATER & SEWED PLAN VIEW, ZONING, SOUTH EAST
PERSPECTIVE, SECTION PLAT 17-28-21, SQARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATION AND
PARKING REQUIREMENTS CHART, DESCRIPTION OF SPACE USEAGE AND
LOCATIONS
If the PUD involves the division of land for the purpose of conveyance, a preliminary plat
shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the subdivision regulations.
Please note that the approved final plan, 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
approved plan.
The signing of this application signifies that the aforementioned information is true and
correct and grants approval for Tri-City Planning staff to be present on the property for
routine monitoring and inspection during review process.
(Applicant Signature) (Date)
PARKING & SQ. FTG. ALLOCATIONS
lCode Requirement
(Parking
Spaces Needed
PK'G
UNIT OR TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
TYPE OF SPACE
REQ'D PER QTY UNITISQ
FT UNIT
TOTAL SQ FT PK'G
SQ FTG SQ FTG
APARTMENTS
2 PER 1 UNIT
2
28 UNITS 56
1000 30000
OFFICES
1 PER 400 SQ FT
0.0025
20000 SQ FT 50
1 20000
RETAIL
1 PER 200 SQ FT
0.005
1600 SQ FT 8
1 1600
COMMUNITY ROOM
1 PER 200 SQ FT
0.004
2000 SQ FT 8
1 2000
BUILDING AMMENITIES
11000
(mechanical, common, stairs, elevators, service, utility, lobby, storage)
TOTAL PKG READ 122
TOTAL BLD SQ FTG 64B00
COURTHOUSE EAST
SPACE USAGE AND LOCATIONS
The courthouse East structure is comprised of three wings and one accessory structure.
Each of the wings was built at different times during the history of the building.
The center section is the original building built in 1913.
The south section is the second addition, which was added in 1948
The north section is two stories and is the final addition added in 1964.
The boiler house is located to the east of the building and at the center of the building and
was built during the construction of the original center section. This structure is to be
reconstructed during the restoration process.
RESIDENCES
APARTMENTS - DESIGNED FOR SENIORS NEEDS
1. Senior apartments will include design features so as to consider the needs
of our mature community. This would include easy access through mild
inclines of the parking to building walkways; none or very few steps; wide
and well lit pass ways.
2. The possibility of some ground floor units is possible with the makeup of
the South and Centex Wings. However, most of the units will be in the P
floor Center Wing and. the 4th Floor Center Wing. Two elevators access
the areas along with 3 stairwells. It is hoped that there would eight to ten.
units.
3. There is not a formal designation of Senior `only' apartments at this time.
If possible at a later date, DEV Properties will pursue legal status for
Senior Only apartments, but will in no way affect the PUD or Zoning; due
to parking restraints being met in either case. (For more information,
please refer to the UNRUH ACT)
STUDIOS - DESIGNED FOR ARTISTS NEEDS
1. The opportunity for small, medium and large sized studio apartments with
good natural light, high ceilings and communal nature, lends itself" to
aspiring as well as established artist. Designated areas throughout the
building and landscape will deem the environment for the wares to be
displayed and appreciated.
2. Again, the possibility of ground floor units exists. Other areas of
possibility are the North Wing, which has easy access, moderate north
light and large spaces. The possibility exists to have some studios
intermixed among the other dwelling units and/or offices. It is hoped that
there would be eight to twelve units.
3_ These units also meet current standard apartment parking requirements.
The current zoning in Kalispell designates the units as standard apartments
GENERAL APARTMENTS
1. Standard apartments will predominantly in the South Wing. Because of
the nature of the views and structure of the South Wing, these units will be
priced accordingly. It is hoped that there will be eight to ten units.
2. Because of the beauty of the South Wing, the possibility of customizing
the apartments per lease agreement exists. This may include layout,
partitions, appliances, finishes and fixtures.
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
1. General office space for local entrepreneurs and established businesses.
2. The office space will be primarily located on the second floor of the
Center Wing, part of the 2nd floor on the South Wing and more than likely
all or part of the North wing.
RETAIL
• SERVICE
1. It is hoped that local entrepreneurs will establish businesses that serve the
building and the neighborhood directly. This will encourage less traffic,
more community support and pride.
2. Such businesses could include: Hair and nail salon, spa, coffee shop, local
crafts, handmade clothing. The locations will be most likely in the I't
floor.
3. There is very limited space for retail. The hope is that two or three small
retail units would serve the building and community without impacting the
neighborhood with undue traffic.
BUILDING AMMENITIES
• LOBBY
1. Large open lobby in the Center Wing, accessed by opposing doors on East
& Nest sides
2. South Wing will maintain it's existing entrance with Handicap access.
3. North Wing could entail its own lobby on the SE corner of the structure.
Use, build out and the tenant would determine this.
• WIDE HALLWAYS
• COMMON AREAS
1. To include seating areas, art displays, game room, message board, mail
slots and directory
• COMMUNITY ROOM
1. To Be Determined in size and location
• BUILDING MANAGER OFFICE
• SERVICE AREAS
• MECHANICAL
Kalispell City Council
Kalispell, MT 59901.
Date: 5/11A)5
Subject: DEV Properties Court House East PUD Proposal/Zoning Change Request
Dear Kalispell City Council,
I live at 1002 4th Ave. East, Kalispell and would like to comment on the DEV Properties PUD
proposal/zoning, change request. I am opposed to creating a PUD district based on the DEV proposal dated
March 21, 2005. The institutional style building has never fit the single-family residential neighborhood it
sits in. I would rather give up the "historic building" rather than allow the plan's proposed intensity of use
(which far exceeds that allowed in its current R3 zoning and also exceeds that allowed in the proposed R-5
zone).
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NO CHANGE OF ZONING
I favor single family residences in this area. I would be enthusiastic about the DEV project if it were
located at the periphery of the business district (such as Linderman School) rather than the heart of our
residential district. Of course, the Linderman property would be appropriately zoned for the proposed use
since it is bordered by B4, RAI and RA3 zones as opposed to being in the middle of an R3 area.
1. The property in question is in an R3 residential area. The permitted use for this area is
single family residence.
2. The property has economic value as currently zoned. I have seen no evidence that the cost
to remove the old hospital buildings is more than the value of the lots if they were sold for use
as single family residences (approx. 12 x $60,000 = $720,000). In other words, I think the
property has reasonable economic uses under its existing zoning. Since the zoning for the
property is R3, if the owners paid more for the property than its value for use as single family
residences on speculation that the zoning would be changed to permit other uses, this was an
investment risk undertaken by the purchaser.
3. DEV was aware of the controversy over acceptable uses prior to purchase. The non-
conforming hospital use for the property terminated 30 years ago. Until several years ago the
county operated offices on the property. The county was allowed to do this, but that right
doesn't automatically transfer to the new owner. This is the subject of a pending lawsuit, so I
won't go into great detail, but I am confident that this will be the court's finding if the lawsuit
proceeds. Consequently there is no inherent "right" to use any building for office space,
commercial, multi -family, or anything other than single family residential.
4. The City Council and planning board must be consistent with their own prior rulings. It
would be inconsistent to have denied an R4 zoning change request in November 2003, and
then turn around and approve a PUD with RA-Idensity (or higher) for the same property now.
The planning board has to work within the framework of the growth policy plan to avoid
lawsuits over "spot zoning". If, according to the planning board's findings #KZC-03-3B in
2003, "the introduction of townhouses will greatly destabilize this area and interject a use not
currently there", certainly the same thing could be said for introducing 28 apartment units,
offices, and a coffee shop.
5. One of the growth policy goals is orderly growth. To me, this means we should expect a
gradual increase in density and intensity of use from the business district outward. Granting
this proposal would give permission for an island of intense use in the middle of a residential
neighborhood for what previously was an incompatible use. The original hospital created an
incompatible use in this area. Zoning regulations regarding non -conforming uses say they
should be extinguished as soon as it's practical to do so. According to the Tri-City Planning
Office report #KZC-03-3B, "the building has outlived its usefulness and needs to be
demolished." After 90 years, now is the time.
6. The proposal does not meet many policies in the Kalispell growth policy. The petition for
zoning map amendment listed several pages of excerpts from growth policy that they felt
supported their petition. Appendix A provides a list of policies that argue against their
petition.
7. The growth policy goal of historic building conservation can't override all other factors.
1 would be delighted if a use compatible with the R3 neighborhood could be found which
would allow the preservation of the building. However, it is unlikely now or in the future that
someone will be interested in converting this institutional style building into a 60,000 square
foot residence, or twelve 5,000 square foot residences. And of course, that is not what is being
proposed. We are being asked to allow non-residential uses for this block of our
neighborhood either to save a historic building, or to improve the project's economic return to
the developers. I'd rather maintain the character of the neighborhood than the building,
although I'd love to hear a proposal that would save both.
ARGUMENTS OPPOSING DEWS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND PUD PROPOSAL
If my arguments to maintain the R3 zoning fail, I have the following objections to DEV's zoning change
request and PUD proposal in its current form.
1. Multi -family housing is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use in an R-S district. The
applicants propose remodeling the building to create 28 apartment units. An apartment (Multi-
family housing) is not an allowed use in an R-5 district as prescribed by ordinances 27.08.020 and
27.08.030.
This alone should be sufficient grounds for rejecting DEV's proposal.
2. The density proposed exceeds the allowed R-5 density. The table in ordinance 27.21.030(4)(a)
sets the maximum density for a residential PUD in an R-5 district at 14 dwelling units/acre. This
would limit the development to 28 units total if the a roximatel 2 acre tract were entirel
dedicated to residential use. The proposal requests 28 apartments, plus 21600 square feet of
office/retail space. Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(5) states "The acreage proposed for commercial use
and its parking shall be excluded from the gross acreage when computing total allowable dwelling
units." Here are my calculations of the density:
Off street parking required for commercial use:
20.000 square feet of office @ 1 space/400 square feet =
50
1.600 square .feet of retail (i.1 space/200 square feet =
8
TOTAL. Parking spaces required for commercial use
58
parking spaces
Off street parking required for apartments @ 2 space/unit
28 units * 2 space/unit =
56
parking spaces
20€10 sq. ft. community room (a 1 space/250 square feet
8
parking spaces
Off street parking required ignoring "amenities" area:
122
parking spaces
Building square feet calculations
TOTAL building square feet from site plan
64743
square feet
Sq. ft. in parking talcs. = (28 x 1.000) +20000+1600+2000 =
51600
square feet
Commercial sq. ft. in parking talcs.=20000+1600 =
21600
Sq. ft. not accounted for in parking talcs. = 64743-51600 =
13143
square feet
Non-residential sq. ft. not accounted= (23600/51.600) x 13143 =
6011
square feet
Additional parking needed C 1 space/400 sq. ft.
15
parking spaces
TOTAL off street parking required including "amenities" area:
137
parking spaces
Parking lot area calculations:
rr,_. inn C, inn ft E]!l flfln ,�. f �t
t Vtal site arca JVV 1t x .3VV Al lei, 0 vv sq uate feece�
Building footprint from site plan-19,985 square feet
Green space from PUD proposal-16,396square feet
Area of parking lot 53,619 square feet
Total number of parking spaces from parking plan = 41+64+19 + I bus.
Allowing bus = 3 cars gives 41+64+1.9+3= 127 parking places
Area of parking for commercial use = 53619 * (58/.127 ) = 24487 square feet
All buildings will contain commercial use so commercial use of buildings = 19985 square feet.
Area of commercial use = 24487+19985 = 44472 square feet
Percentage commercial use = 44472/90000 =
Area remaining for residential use = 90,000 - 44472 =
Converting to acres gives 45528 / 43560 =
Proposed units
This is over 1.9 tunes the allowed density.
49.4%
45528 square feet
1.045 acre
Density
28 units 2811.045 = 26.8 units/acre
3. Commercial use exceeds maximum allowed percentage of the land area. The gross area of
commercial establishments and their parking in residential PUD districts is restricted by
27.21.030(4)(a)(1) to under 10% of the land area. For Mixed Use PUD districts
27.21.030(4)(a)(5)(d)(5) restricts the gross area of commercial establishments and their parking
areas to under 35 % of the land area. My calculations show 49.4%n of the area of the development
is commercial use, which exceeds the both limits.
4. Parking is insufficient for the proposed uses. The parking calculation in the proposal suggests
that 122 parking spaces are required with 127 spaces provided. However, there are several
problems with this calculation. The required buffer between the parking and lot lines are not
provided in the current plan. 27.26.030(2)(d) says "no parking space in the front yard shall extend
to within 5 feet of the property line." Since the parking lot abuts 173 residential property, parking
in the side yard setback is not allowed (i.e. screening alone is insufficient) per
27.26.030(2)(e)(1)(iii). The number of parking spaces would likely be reduced once the required
setback is added.
Also, my calculations show 13143 square feet of building area unaccounted for in the proposed
parking calculations. I don't believe it is customary to subtract stairs, hallways, storage areas, etc.
from the building when computing area required for parking. Allocating this space between
non-residential use (which requires additional parking) and the apartments (which would not)
shows an additional 15 parking spaces are needed for a total of 1.37, more than available on the
site plan. I would also question the retail calculation, particularly since building "D" (marked
professional and retail in the proposal) is 2600 x 2 =5200 square feet, but only 1600 square Meet of
retail is accounted for in the proposal.
S. Proposal does not meet minimum land area for a Residential Mixed Use PUD. Ordinance
27.21.030(4)(a)(5)(d)(1) requires a minimum of 20 acres. This proposed PUD is 2 acres.
6. Proposal does not meet green space requirements. The developers should not be allowed to
increase the current parking lot size, as this would be moving further away from the R3 character
of the neighborhood. Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(a)(5)(d)(6) specifies the maximum permissible
ground cover must be less than 70%. In this proposal it is (90000-16396)/90000 = 82%, more
than the maximum permitted 70%.
7. Proposed commercial use brings additional traffic into the neighborhood. In DEV's
presentation to the neighborhood, the developers proposed a drive -through coffee shop (building
"D" on their site plan). Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(a)(3) requires that commercial uses "shall be so
located, designed and operated as to serve primarily the needs of the persons within the district
and not persons residing elsewhere," A drive -through coffee shop clearly is designed to bring in
additional traffic from outside the district, which in this case is the one block development.
8. Rental apartments are less desirable than owner -occupied units. Renters have a higher
turnover rate and are less concerned with maintaining the positive characteristics of the
neighborhood.
9. DEV's PUD proposal lacks important details and supporting documentation. For example,
building D is proposed to be 2600 x 2 of professional/retail use. How did the parking lot
requirement calculation come up with only 1600 sq. ft. of retail? How were the calculations of
office space computed? Although DEV's presentation to the neighborhood spoke of a coffee shop,
the proposal requests "2 or 3 small retail units". How were the green space calculations computed?
What is the proposed function of the ramp on the east entry? Where did the calculation of 142
"total parking spaces" come froze? The proposal questions "C" and " H" are incomplete. Question
C does not mention a computed density figure or mention specific setbacks. Neither did DEV's
February presentation to the neighborhood mentioned in question F. I suspect that some
respondents might have been less favorable to the proposal had they realized that at least 137
people would be utilizing this proposed facility (based on 1 person per required parking space).
In Z11MMnrV, nhhnilffh it wtnitd he dr�cirnhlf- to first n rnnirnntihlr imc fear tho avioina hididinac Chic
proposal's intensity of use does not even come close to meeting the requirements for an R-5 PUD in
density, percentage commercial use, parking, and other factors. It cannot be approved.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL.:
1. Deny the DEV R-5 zoning change request and PUD overlay.
There is no zoning change possible that will allow
DEV to combine the uses they suggest at this site.
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY?
I. Remove the existing buildings and develop the lots as single family residences in accordance with
the existing R-3 zone. This is my suggestion.
2. Remove the office / retail components and apply for a none change to RA-1 (low density
residential apartment) to redevelop the existing buildings for apartments. This is the second best
choice.
At first glance, the suggestions below may seem to be possibilities, but they really are not possible
options at this location.
1. Remove the apartment component and apply for a zone change to R-5 to redevelop the existing
buildings for offices. Offices would be an allowed use in R-5, but R-5 cannot be permitted in this
location for reasons I have outlined below.
2. Apply for a tone change to RA-3 (residential apartmentloffice) to redevelop the existing buildings
for offices and apartments. These would be allowed uses in RA-3, but RA-3 cannot be permitted
in this location for reasons I have outlined below,
Why R-5 (Residential / Professional Office) cannot be permitted in this location:
The R-5 zone would allow professional offices, but office use is incompatible with the residential
neighborhood and fails on many other criteria. The R-5 zone was intended to save residences (by allowing
houses bordering the business area to be converted to office use as the business district grows) and to
preserve the character of the neighborhood. Allowing R-5 at this location would do just the opposite:
introducing commercial use into the middle of a residential area where we specifically don't want it to
spread outwards.
Front 27.08.0.10 (R-5 Intent) "These office structures... shall be architecturally harmonious with the
adjacent residential structures. Such a district should serve as a buffer between residential areas and other
commercial districts and should be associated with arterial or minor arterial streets. " The proposed use
fails the intent of R-5 on at least 3 counts as well as other areas previously described: 1) It is not
architecturally harmonious, 2) it is not adjacent to a commercial district, and 3) it is not associated with an
arterial or miner arterial street. In fact Sth Avenue E is not even a through street!
Why RA-3 (residential apartment/office) cannot be permitted in this location:
All of the problems described above with locating business in this area also apply to the RA-3 zone.
From 27.11.010 (RA-3 Intent) "This district serves as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and
adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and
business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands
or the Central Business District. "
The proposed use fails the intent of RA-3 on at least 3 counts as well as other areas previously described: 1)
Since it is in the middle of a residential area, it doesn't serve as a buffer between commercial and
residential, 2) it is not near major streets, arterials, or the business district, and 3) it is not within or
adjacent to a business corridor or the Central Business District as required.
SUGGESTED CHANGES TO IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY WITH AN RA-1 ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST:
1. Eliminate the office and retail components, redeveloping for apartment/artist studio apartment use
only.
2. Don't rebuild building "D" of the proposal. Use this area for parking.
3. Put the required 5' setbacks between the parking lot and the property lines.
4. Remove the 1964 addition that is architecturally incompatible with the rest of the structure. This
would allow the project to meet green space requirements, as well as bring the project's density
more in line with the neighboring district.
5. Develop the historic portions of the buildings (1913 and 1948 sections) with a maximum of 30
apartments. This number is well above existing and neighboring R-3 density of 14 units for this
block (7 per acre), and the previously rejected R-4 density of 24. Limiting the density to this
figure is a trade-off between being able to renovate the older sections of the building and the
undesirable impacts that keeping the building and its high density occupancy will have on the
surrounding neighborhood.
6. Use the building's existing "wide hallways" as display area for incidental display and safes of art
items produced on the site.
Respectfully yours,
Charles Cummings
1002 4th Ave. I-.
Kalispell, NIT 59901
755-6596
Appendix A -
HOW THE DEV PROPOSAL FAILS TO MEET THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY:
The following are excerpts from the Kalispell Growth policy, with my comments added in this font.
2. Growth Management
Issues:
2. Growth has had both positive and negative effects on the local quality of life.
Along with a good economy and many examples of well designed development,
the impacts of growth have also included disruption of established
neighborhoods, strain on public facilities and services, environmental impacts,
increasing traffic and housing casts and changing cultural values. This proposal
would disrupt an established neighborhood and increase traffic, leading to a negative effect on
the local quality of life.
GOALS;
1. ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, ORDERLY GROWTH
CONSISTENT WITH HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, FISCAL SOUNDNESS,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITY VITALITY. This proposal
would not provide orderly growth where density would gradually increase from the business
district out. Instead, it would sanction an island of commercial activity in the middle of an
established R3 residential neighborhood.
Policies:
2. Encourage consistent government policies for development and
infrastructure within urban areas. Approving this proposal would be inconsistent with
the planning board's own ruling on a lower density proposal for this same property in
November, 2043.
3. Conserve well -established residential areas that have significant
neighborhood and cultural integrity, such as Kalispell's historic districts. This
proposal would sanction retail and commercial activity that was extinguished when the
hospital discontinued operations in the 1970s. Public sector (county) offices did not have a
retail aspect. This proposal threatens one of Kalispell's historic residential districts.
5. Individual property owners have the right to sell, develop or to manage their
property in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the City of
Kalispell and the laws of the State of Montana. The PUd`3 proposal does not meet the
rules and regulations adopted by the City of Kalispell.
6. Design and locate development to protect public health and safety; insure
adequate provision of services; be compatible with the character of its
surroundings and encourage the most appropriate use of land. This proposal is not
compatible with the character of its surroundings in scale or use.
3. Land Use: Housing
Policies:
2. Encourage the development of urban residential neighborhoods as the
primary residential land use pattern in the growth policy area by allowing
urban residential densities in areas designated as suburban residential
provided the development is consistent with the character of the area and
public services are adequate. This proposal is not consistent with the character of the
area.
10. Urban Residential:
b. Typical densities are four to twelve dwellings per gross acre. This proposal has
26.8 units/acre, far above the urban residential density.
4. Land Use: Business and Industry
GOALS:
7. MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF WELL -ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS
BY AVOIDING THE ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES. This proposal
sanctions incompatible business use, damaging the integrity of a well -established residential
area.
2. Neighborhood Commercial Areas:
b. Neighborhood commercial areas should generally be three to five acres
in size and be spaced one-half to one mile apart. Sites should be configured to
enable clustering of neighborhood commercial businesses, encouraging bike
and pedestrian access where practicable. This proposal site is 2 acres, smaller than
practical far a neighborhood commercial area.
S. Urban Design, Historic and Cultural Conservation
Policies:
1. Development and other changes in neighborhoods, historic districts, and
downtown should be compatible with the scale, patterns, landmarks, and
architecture of its surroundings. The buildings in this proposal are incompatible with
their surroundings in height, scale, and architecture.
10. Transportation
Issues:
9. Excess traffic along Third Avenue East and Fourth Avenue East degrades the
residential character of the area. This proposal would increase traffic on Fourth and
Fifth Avenue East, further degrading the residential character of the area.
GOALS:
7. REDUCE CONGESTION AND EXCESS TRAFFIC IN PROBLEM AREAS. This
proposal would increase traffic in a problem area near Hedges School.
8, MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY AVOIDING THE
INTRODUCTION OF NON -LOCAL TRAFFIC. The office and retail aspects of this
proposal's PUD would increase non -local traffic.
City Council Members
City of Kalispell
Re: Courthouse East proposal
May 9, 2005
Bryan H. Schutt
614 Second Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Since I am still learning the ropes in my position with the Kalispell planning board, I wished to
submit the rationale for my vote against the Courthouse East project currently being considered.
I understand how a yes -or -no vote leaves few clues as to the basis behind that vote, so it seemed
appropriate to put my reasoning down on paper for your consideration. I voted against the
project for several reasons.
Compatible character -- When we re -zone properties, we ought to consider both the present
and foreseeable future state of that neighborhood. Earlier that same meeting, the planning board
unanimously approved a residential -to -business zone change on Meridian Road. That re -zoning
was obvious and appropriate, since that entire area is changing character because of impending
street work on Meridian.
But change and transition is not the status of the east side of Kalispell. It is one of the most
stable neighborhoods in town. It has high home values, involved citizens, and a strong sense of
neighborhood character. In no small part, these characteristics derive from its homogeneous
residential character. Any re -zoning within such a neighborhood should take that stability and
character into account, and strive to be compatible within it. In my opinion, the Courthouse East
Project, as presented, is not compatible for the following reasons:
Overall scale -- My main concern was with the size of the project: 65,000 sf is a lot of building
to place in one city block. The developers themselves admitted that they were trying to ignore
11,000 sf as sort of non -used space. By being so large, the project generates enough parking to
overwhelm the site. A smaller overall building would make for less intrusion into the area. I
feel that the developers should consider removing at least some portion of the complex (the
newest north wing?), thereby reducing overall mass and parking requirements while freeing up
space onsite.
Traffic and parking — The parking plan as shown was extremely tight. Any project of this scale
with awkward parking facilities is only going to spill more parked cars onto adjoining streets.
The developer's decision to rebuild on the footprint of the old physical plant further complicates
traffic flow. The point made during testimony that commercial uses are supposed to be located
on collector streets is well taken. liven if all of the parking can be accommodated on -site, those
cars still drive through the nearby residential streets, none of which are improved or designated
as collector streets.
I am open to multi -family housing on that site. It mares sense with its proximity to services and
the residential. quality of the neighborhood. I am open to retaining some portion of the existing
structure. t'A' dapLiV V le -use iS gvvu ek,01101IIICS ctllu play) UJJ L11G l,llal acCGl allu 111.S1V1y aSsociaicu
with the building. (How many of you were born there?) But I felt that this project, in its current
state, is simply not the best scheme for the neighborhood. I would encourage the developer to
re -work a smaller, more compatible proposal. I thank you for your time and consideration of
these issues.
Respectfully yours,
Bryan H. Schutt
TEIIIENtl TWIDEN 735 Fourth Ave. E., Kalispell, MT 59901
MAR 2 ? 2005
TR!-CITY PLANNING OFFICE
March 28, 2005
Narda A. Wilson, AICP
Senior Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Court House East PUD
Dear Narda,
Mark, in your office, told me that you are the person to write to about this. If this letter should
really go to someone else, please let me know.
I have received a copy of the PUD proposal filed by DEV Development. I know that
many people in my neighborhood think preserving the old hospital is an excellent idea.
And it would be a good idea, one to which I wouldn't object, if it weren't for the density and
accompanying problems that its preservation presents.
To begin with, a look at the City of Kalispell Ordinances, Chapter 27.21; causes me to
believe that the type of PUD the developers wish to build would not be legal at the
location proposed for the following reasons:
1. Section 010 states that the intent of the Chapter is to provide a zoning
classification that allows for flexibility while at the same time preserves and enhances the
integrity and environmental value of an area. Section 020(2)(d) requires consideration of
"The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project upon the
neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established."
The PUD proposal calls for 40 apartments, 65 office and retail spaces, 142 parking
spaces, 30 to 40 storage areas (The purpose of the storage areas is not known) and a
coffee shop. The density of this in the space of one city block is overwhelming. Certainly
nothing like it exists anywhere in any residential neighborhood in Kalispell. In fact, this kind
of density may not exist anywhere in the city. Such density would most assuredly not
preserve or enhance the integrity and environmental values of the east side of Kalispell nor
would it make a beneficial contribution to the neighborhood. It would also make the comings
and goings of the children who attend Hedges Elementary School even more hazardous
than they are now.
2. 'The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations
otherwise applicable to the subject properly" is a required subject of review according to
Section 020(2)(a) of the Chapter.
The property upon which the building sits is zoned R3. This is admitted by DEV
Properties in its proposal. (See the first page of the zoning proposal.) R3 is single family
residential. The plans for the building don't pretend to be single family residential. In order
T(IEDIP 735 Fourth Ave. E., Kalispell, MT 59901
building sits is slightly over two (2) acres. It does not qualify under the
ordinance for Mixed Use PUD zoning.
2) And paragraph 5 of that section further states: "The combined area
of all commercial uses cannot exceed thirty-five percent (35%)
including the area of all associated facilities such as parking."
Given that there are 40 apartments with a presumed 40 parking
spaces needed, and there are 65 commercial spaces with 130 parking
spaces needed, it appears to me that the commercial aspects of this PUD
would consume more than 40% of the space available, thus violating the
provisions of paragraph 5.
6. DEV Properties suggests in its PUD application that the proposed uses of this
building will add "cohesiveness" and have a "uniting effect to the neighborhood. I
disagree. I see this proposal, if allowed to go forward, as being a divisive factor in the
neighborhood. Once the people who live near this block realize what it means to the
peaceful use of their homes and the functionality of this area of town, they will be very
unhappy. The congestion, the noise, the danger to them and their children from the ensuing
increase in traffic will more than offset any possible advantage this development might have
for them.
7. DEV Properties states in its PUD application that the old building is compatible
with the rest of the neighborhood. In fact it is not compatible with its surroundings. 30 years
ago it became a nonconforming use because the City planned for this area to be single
family residential and zoned it as such. The idea is that when the building ceases to be
used for the original purpose --a hospital --the nonconforming use terminates. The law does
not love nonconforming uses. Simply because this building has been here a long time
does not make it compatible with the neighborhood around it.
8. There are insufficient sidewalks in this part of town for those of us who walk. It
frequently becomes necessary to take to the streets in places adjacent to the proposed
PUD. Assuming an increase in traffic in this immediate vicinity approaching 100 vehicles,
such a venture as walking your dog will become iffy at best and hazardous at worst.
9. Last October, the City of Kalispell, through the City Council, approved changes
to 3rd and 4th Avenues East in an effort to do what they called "calm traffic". Only a small
fraction of what was proposed has actually been done, and now we are looking at a huge
increase in the use of those streets by hundreds of cars each day. I truly do not believe that
the neighborhood can withstand such pressure. I also do not see why it should.
Please take a long hard look at this. It is nothing that the City of Kalispell wants or
needs smack dab in the middle of a lovely, peaceful residential neighborhood.
If you wish to phone me, my number is 756-8967.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Nieman
Woodattd FCorai
& Greenhouses
647 6th Ave East
Kalispell MT 59903
April 1 S, 2005
F;i� 0117
APR 18 2005
TRI-CITY PLANNING OFFS
Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
Kalispell City Council Chambers
Kalispell City Hall
312 1' Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: The two requests from DEV Properties concerning a zone change and PUD
P.O. BOX 1399
Wes & Fay Wolf
As we are unable to attend the meeting concerned with the above changes, we would like to take
this opportunity to urge the adoption of the change in zoning from R-3 to R-5. Along with this
zone change, we encourage allowing the Planned Unit Development as proposed.
Not only are we in favor of the varied aspects of the proposed redevelopment of the property
known as "Courthouse East", we will welcome this change in use of this historical building in
our neighborhood. It seems a realistic and esthetically pleasing use of the building in a way that
will enhance the neighborhood, because, as it stands, the property is a terrible eyesore and has
been attractive to vandals and trespassers. If allowed to continue to deteriorate, this property will
affect our own property values.
Our business and our personal residence look out over the property in question. It will be a relief
to welcome the new apartment dwellers, artists in residence, and other businesses to our little
neighborhood.
Again, we stand firmly behind DEV Properties in their two requests of your Board.
Sincerely,
Pay Wolf
Wesley Wolf r'
Owners of Woodland li oral-64- *75"'
Ave. East
and Residence at 615 - 7 h St. East
Narda A. Wilson, Senior- Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Date: 4/ 1 Si 05
Subject: DEV Properties Court House East PUD Proposal, Revision A
Dear Narda,
I have previously Filed a public comment dated 4i3/05 based on the information provided to me by your
office. This included DEV Properties PUD application. dated March 4, 2005. Since that time, it appears
that their proposal has been revised and now also includes a zoning change request to R5. Although many
of my comments still apply, I would like to update my comments.
I live at 1002 4th Ave. East, Kalispell and would like to comment on the DEV Properties PUD proposal. I
am opposed to creating a PUD district based on the DEV proposal dated March 21, 2005. The institutional
style building has never fit the single-family residential neighborhood it sits in. I would rather give up the
"historic building" rather than allow the plan's proposed intensity of use (which far exceeds that allowed in
its current R3 zoning and also exceeds that allowed in the proposed R5 zone).
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NO CHANGE OF ZONING
I favor single family residences in this area. I would be enthusiastic about the DEV project if it were
located at the periphery of the business district (such as Linderman School) rather than the heart of our
residential district. Of course, the Linderman property would be appropriately zoned for the proposed use
since it is bordered by B4, RAI and RA3 zones as opposed to being in the middle of an R3 area.
I . The property in question is in an R3 residential area. The permitted use for this area is
single family residence.
2. The property has economic value as currently zoned. I have seen no evidence that the cost
to remove the old hospital buildings is more than the value of the lots if they were sold for use
as single family residences (approx. 12 x $60,000 = $720,000). In other words, I think the
property has reasonable economic uses under its existing zoning. Since the zoning for the
property is R3, if the owners paid more for the property than its value for use as single family
residences on speculation that the zoning would be changed to permit other uses, this was an
investment risk undertaken by the purchaser.
3. DEV was aware of the controversy over acceptable uses prior to purchase. The non-
conforming hospital use for the property terminated 30 years ago. Until several years ago the
county operated offices on the property. The county was allowed to do this, but that right
doesn't automatically transfer to the new owner. This is the subject of a pending lawsuit, so I
won't go into great detail, but I am confident that this will be the court's finding if the lawsuit
proceeds. Consequently there is no inherent "right" to use any building for office space,
commercial, multi -family, or anything other than single family residential.
4, The planning board must be consistent with its own prior rulings_ It would be
inconsistent for the planning board to deny an R4 zoning change request in November 2003,
and then turn around and approve a PUD with RA-ldensity (or higher) for the same property
now. The planning board has to work within the framework of the growth policy plan to
avoid lawsuits over "spot zoning". If, according to the planning board's findings in 2003, "the
introduction of townhouses will greatly destabilize this area and interject a use not currently
there", certainly the same thing could be said for introducing 28 apartment units, offices. and
a coffee shop.
5. One of the growth policy goals is orderiv growth. To me, this means we should expect a
gradual increase in density and intensity of use from the business district outward. Granting
this proposal would give permission for an island of intense use in the middle of a residential
nei,zlhborhood for what previously was an incompatible use. The original lospital created an
incompatible use in this area. Zoning regulations regarding non -conforming uses say they
should be extinguished as soon as it's practical to do so. According to the Tri-City Planning
Office report TKZC-03-3B, "the building has outlived its usefulness and needs to be
demolished." After 90 years, now is the time.
6. The proposal does not meet many policies in the Kalispell growth policy. The petition for
zoning map amendment listed several pages of excerpts from growth policy that they felt
supported their petition. Appendix A provides a list of policies which argue against their
petition.
7. The growth policy goal of historic building conservation can't override all other factors.
I would be delighted if a use compatible with the R3 neighborhood could be found which
would allow the preservation of the building. However, it is unlikely now or in the future that
someone will be interested in converting this institutional style building into a 60.000 square
foot residence, or twelve 5,000 square foot residences. And of course, that is not what is being
proposed. We are being asked to allow non-residential uses for this block of our
neighborhood either to save a historic building, or to improve the project's economic return to
the developers. I'd rather maintain the character of the neighborhood than the building,
although I'd love to hear a proposal that would save both,
ARGUMENT'S OPPOSING DEV'S PUS PROPOSAL
If my arguments to maintain the Ri zoning fail, I have the following objections to DEV's PUD proposal in
its current form,
The density proposed exceeds the allowed RS density. The table in ordinance 2721.030(4)(a)
sets the maximum density for a residential PUD in an R5 district at 14 dwelling units/acre. This
would limit the development to 28 units total if the approximately 2 acre tract were entirely
dedicated to residential use. The proposal requests 28 apartments; plus 21600 square feet of
office/retail space. Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(5) states "The acreage proposed for commercial use
and its parking shall be excluded from the gross acreage when computing total allowable dwelling
units." Here are my calculations of the density:
Off street parking required for commercial use:
20,000 square feet of office @ I space/400 square feet =
50
1600 square feet of retail @ 1 space/200 square feet =
8
TOTAL Parking spaces required for commercial use
58
parking spaces
Off street parking required for apartments @ 2 space/unit
28 units @ 2 space/unit =
56
parking spaces
2000 sq. ft. community room @ I space/250 square feet =
8
parking spaces
Off street parking required ignoring "amenities" area:
122
parking spaces
Building square feet calculations
TOTAL building square feet from site plan
64743
square feet
Sq. ft. in parking talcs. = (28 x 1000) +20000+1600+2000 =
51600
square feet
Commercial sq. ft. in parking cafes.=20000+1600 =
21600
square feet
Non-residential sq, ft. in parking talcs.=20000+1600+2000 =
23600
square feet
Sq. ft. not accounted for in parking cafes. = 64743-51600 =
13143
square feet
Non-residential sq. ft. not accounted= (23600/51600) x 13143 =
6011
square feet
Additional parking needed @, I space/400 sq, ft, = 6011 /400=
15
parking spaces
TOTAL off street parking required including "amenities" area:
137
parking spaces
Parkin4 lot area calculations:
Total site area 300 ft x 300 ft 90,000square feet
Building footprint from site plan-19,985square feet
Green space from PUD proposal-16,396square feet
Area of parking lot 53,6 I9square feet
Total number of parking spaces from parking plan = 41+64+19 + I bus.
Allowing 1 bus = 3 cars gives 41+64+19+3= 127parking places
Area of parking for commercial use = 53619 x (58/127 ) = 24487square feet
All buildings will contain commercial use so commercial use of buildings = 19985 square feet.
Area of commercial use = 24487+19985 = 44472square feet
Percentage commercial use = 44472/90000 = 49.4%
Area retraining for residential use = 90,000 - 44472 = 45528square feet
Converting to acres gives 45528 / 43560 1.045acre
Proposed units Density
28 units 28/1.045 = 26.8units/acre
This is over 19 times the allowed density.
This alone should be sufficient grounds for rejecting DEV's proposal.
2. Commercial use exceeds 10% of the land area. Commercial uses are allowed in a residential
PUD district, but 27.21.030(4)(a)(1) restricts the gross area of commercial establishments and
their parking areas to under 10% of the land area. My calculations show 49.4% of the area of the
development is commercial use, which exceeds the 10% limit.
3. Parking is insufficient for the proposed uses. The parking calculation in the proposal suggests
that 122 parking spaces are required with 127 spaces provided. However, there are several
problems with this calculation. The required buffer between the parking and lot lines are not
provided in the current plan. 27.26.030(2)(d) says "no parking space in the front yard shall extend
to within 5 feet of the property line." Since the parking lot abuts R3 residential property, parking
in the side yard setback is not allowed (i.e. screening alone is insufficient) per
27?6.030(2)(e)(1)(iii). The number of parking spaces would likely be reduced once the required
setback is added.
Also, my calculations show 13143 square feet of building area unaccounted for in the proposed
parking calculations. I don't believe it is customary to subtract stairs, hallways, storage areas, etc.
from the building when computing area required for parking. Allocating this space between
non-residential use (which requires additional parking) and the apartments (which would not)
shows an additional 15 parking spaces are needed for a total of 137, more than available on the
site plan. 1 would also question the retail calculation., particularly since building "W (marked
professional and retail in the proposal) is 2600 x 2 =5200 square feet, but only 1600 square feet of
retail is accounted for in the proposal.
4. Proposal does not meet minimum land area for a Residential Mixed Use PUD. Ordinance
27.21.030(4)(a)(5)(d)(1) requires a minimum of 20 acres. This proposed PUT) is 2 acres_
5. Proposal does not meet green space requirements. The developers should not be allowed to
increase the current parking lot size, as this would be moving further away from the R3 character
of the neighborhood. Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(a)(5)(d)(6) specifies the maximum permissible
ground cover must be less than 70%. In this proposal it is (90000-16396)/90000 = 82%, more
than the maximum permitted 70%.
6. Proposed commercial use brings additional traffic into the neighborhood. In DEV's
presentation to the neighborhood, the developers proposed a drive -through coffee shop (building
"➢" on their site plan). Ordinance 27.21.030(4)(a)(3) requires that commercial uses "shall be so
located, designed and operated as to serve primarily the needs of the persons within the district
a- l not nr renne raci lino F lcaezrh�rP " A lriv-t}1rnrin}s rn{fP� chnn rlaarl�r is riueicmprl Yn hrin T in
a.x.,...o. t............ ......... W. ..,,. .. ........ . � .... ... ..... .. .,......w� ..___,q, ,...... ..� .-. �., w, �..... ,.,, .,..b
additionai traffic from outside the development.
7. Rental apartments are less desirable than owner-oecupied units. Renters have a higher
turnover rate and are less concerned with maintaining the positive characteristics of the
neighborhood.
S. DEV's PUD proposal lacks important details and supporting documentation. For example,
building D is proposed to be 2600 x 2 of professionallretail use_ How did the parking lot
requirement calculation come up with only 1600 sq. ft. of retail? How were the calculations of
office space computed? Although DEV's presentation to the neighborhood spoke of a coffee shop,
the proposal requests "2 or 3 small retail units". How were the green space calculations computed?
What is the proposed function of the ramp on the east entry? Where did the calculation of 142
"total parking spaces" come from? The proposal questions "C" and "H" are incomplete. Question
C does not mention a computed density figure or mention specific setbacks. Neither did DEV's
February presentation to the neighborhood mentioned in question F. I suspect that some
respondents alight have been less favorable to the proposal had they realized that at least 137
people would be utilizing this proposed facility (based on l person per required parking space).
In summary, although it would be desirable to find a compatible use for the existing buildings, this
proposal's intensity of use does not even come close to meeting the requirements for an R5 PUD in density,
percentage commercial use, parking, and other factors. It cannot be approved.
Respectfully yours,
Charles Cummings
1002 4th Ave. E.
v..1;......,11 X.4rr CCl�fll
i\a11.aFJ il, 1YAl
755-6596
Appendix A - HOW THE DEV PROPOSAL FAILS TO MEET THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY:
The following are excerpts from the Kalispell Growth policy, with my comments added in thisfont.
2. Growth Management
Issues:
2. Growth has had both positive and negative effects on the local quality of life.
Along with a good economy and many examples of well designed development,
the impacts of growth have also included disruption of established
neighborhoods, strain on public facilities and services, environmental impacts,
increasing traffic and housing costs and changing cultural values. This proposal
would disrupt an established neighborhood, and increase traffic, leading to a negative effect on
the local quality of life.
GOALS:
1. ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, ORDERLY GROWTH
CONSISTENT WITH HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, FISCAL SOUNDNESS,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITY VITALITY. This proposal
would not provide orderly growth where density would gradually increase from the business
district out. Instead, it would sanction an island of commercial activity in tare middle of an
established R3 residential neighborhood
Policies:
2. Encourage consistent government policies for development and
infrastructure within urban areas. Approving this proposal would be inconsistent with
the planning board's own ruling on a lower density proposal for this same property in
November, 2003.
3. Conserve well -established residential areas that have significant
nf-iahhnrhr)nd and r.ultural int-e.p-Hiv c3Trh aG Kaiicnall'c hictnrir_ riictrirtc TIT;c
proposal would sanction retail and commercial activity that was extinguished when the
hospital discontinued operations in the 1970s. Public sector (county) offices did not have a
retail aspect. This proposal threatens one of Kalispell's historic residential districts.
5. Individual property owners have the right to sell, develop or to manage their
property in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the City of
Kalispell and the laws of the State of Montana. The PUD proposal does not meet the
rules and regulations adopted by the City of Kalispell.
6. Design and locate development to protect public health and safety; insure
adequate provision of services; be compatible with the character of its
surroundings and encourage the most appropriate use of land. This proposal is not
compatible with the character of its surroundings in scale or use.
3. Land Use: Housing
Policies:
2. Encourage the development of urban residential neighborhoods as the
primary residential land use pattern in the growth policy area by allowing
urban residential densities in areas designated as suburban residential
provided the development is consistent with the character of the area and
public services are adequate. This proposal is not consistent with the character of the
area.
10. Urban Residential:
b. Typical densities are four to twelve dwellings per gross acre. This proposal has
2b.3 units/acre, far above the urban residential density.
4. Land Use: Business and Industry
RrOMITIIZI
7. MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF WELL -ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS
BY AVOIDING THE ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES. This proposal
sanctions incompatible business use, damaging the integrity of a well -established residential
area.
2. Neighborhood Commercial Areas:
b. Neighborhood commercial areas should generally be three to five acres
in size and be spaced one-half to one mile apart. Sites should be configured to
enable clustering of neighborhood commercial businesses, encouraging bike
and pedestrian access where practicable. This proposal site is 2 acres, smaller than
practical for a neighborhood commercial area.
8. Urban Design, Historic and Cultural Conservation
Policies:
1. Development and other changes in neighborhoods, historic districts, and
downtown should be compatible with the scale, patterns, landmarks, and
architecture of its surroundings. The buildings in this proposal are incompatible with
their surroundings in height, scale, and architecture.
10. Transportation
Issues:
9. Excess traffic along Third Avenue East and Fourth Avenue East degrades the
residential character of the area. This proposal would increase traffic on Fourth and
Fifth Avenue East, further degrading the residential character of the area
GOALS:
7. REDUCE CONGESTION AND EXCESS TRAFFIC IN PROBLEM AREAS. This
proposal would increase traffic in a problem area near Hedges School.
8. MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY AVOIDING THE
INTRODUCTION OF NON -LOCAL TRAFFIC. The office and retail aspects of this
proposal's PUD would increase non -local traffic.
DEV PROPERTIES PARKING CALCULATIONS
Off street parking required for commercial use:
20,000 square feet of office @ 1 space/400 square feet =
50
1600 square feet of retail @ I space/200 square feet =
8
TOTAL Parking spaces required for commercial use
58
parking spaces
Off street parking required for apartments @. 2 space/unit
28 units @ 2 space/unit =
56
parking spaces
2000 sq. ft. community room @ 1 space/250 square feet =
8
parking spaces
Off street parking required ignoring "amenities" area:
122
parking spaces
Building square feet calculations
TOTAL building square feet from site plan
64743
square feet
Sq. ft. in parking calcs. _ (28 x 1000) +20000+1600- 2000
51600
square feet
Commercial sq. ft, in parking talcs.=20000+1600 =
21600
square feet
Non-residential sq. ft. in parking calcs.=20000+1600+2000=
23600
square feet
Sq. ft. not accounted for in parking talcs. = 64743-51600 =
13143
square feet
Non-residential sq. ft. not accounted= (23600/51600) x 13143 =
6011
square feet
Additional parking needed @ 1 space/400 sq. ft.=6011/400=
15
parking spaces
TOTAL off street parking required including "amenities" area:
137
parking spaces
Parking lot area calculations:
Total site area 300 ft x 300 ft 90,000 square feet
Building footprint from site plan-19,985 square feet
Green space from PUD proposal-16.396 square feet
Area of parking lot 53,619 square feet
Total number of parking spaces from parking plan = 41+64+19 + I bus.
Allowing I bus = 3 cars gives 41-+-64+19+3= 127 parking places
Area of parking for commercial use = 53619 x (58/127 ) = 24487 square feet
All buildings will contain commercial use so commercial use of buildings = 19985 square feet.
Area of commercial use = 24487+19985 = 44472 square feet
Percentage commercial use = 44472/90000 = 49.4%
Area remaining for residential use = 90,000 - 44472 = 45528 square feet
Converting to acres gives 45528 / 43560 = 1.045 acre
Proposed units
This is over 3.9 times the allowed density.
Building sq.ft. calculations from site plan
Density
28 units 2.8/1,045 = 26.8
6807 4
5584 4
4970 2
2600 2
Percentage commercial parking 46%
units/acre
27228
22336
9940
5200
64704
-0,1821778 0.494138
0,81782222
RECiEAVED
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street East -Suite 211 APR 19; 2005
Kalispell, Montana 59901 TRl-CITY PLANNING OFFICE
April 13, 2005
This is in regard to the special meeting of the planning board, scheduled
for Tuesday, April 19, 2005, that will discuss the zoning change requested
by DEV Properties. I am very opposed to this zoning change. I live
directly across the street from the proposed development. This has
traditionally been a single family housing neighborhood. If rezoning is
allowed there will be unacceptable problems. It would increase
neighborhood noise levels through additional human and automotive
population, and garbage collection. The increase in traffic would:
potentially affect safety/rescue equipment
impact the parking availability for the current residents
adversely impact the safety of the children attending Hedges
School, including pedestrians, bus students, and bicycle riders
create snow removal hazards
I am strongly opposed to this zoning request. Please deny this request.
Sincerely,
L
Ellen G. Fries
737 6th Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Page I of I
Tricity Planning
From. "Gordy Rohlinger" <gordy@mtdig.net>
To: <tricity@centurytel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:50 PM
Dear Narda, Or To Whom It May Concern, -
My name is Gordy Rohlinger and I am responding to the situation that is occurring directly
across the street from us concerning the old Courthouse East Bldg. My address is 645 5th
Ave. E. 1 am also responding on behalf of Lonnie Hellickson and my mother, Virginia Rohinger
who also live at this address.
Up until this point I have pretty much turned a blind eye and been reticent to what has been
occurring across the street frankly because most of the ideas that have been proposed have
been fairly innocuous and non -threatening. That is up until now. The original plan that Galinas
had for 22 or 24 townhouse sites I thought was excellent and so I had no objection. Then that
was changed apparently to just single family residences. I wasn't too keen about that idea but
it wasn't horrendous. I just felt that it would not be economically feasible and so I knew it
would not happen so again I said nothing. Then came the idea of it being turned into a senior
citizen housing development. This I felt would be ideal. Even the idea of a few "quiet" type
businesses, i.e. CPA or attorney's office etc was still "okay". However, when I read in the
paper that it would be a mixture of senior citizen and regular apartments a trig red flag went
up. For one thing, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot designate a mixture. That is
discriminatory. Either it is one or the other. Therefore, I knew immediately that what would
happen would be "the other." And then the article mentioned about parking. Whoa! Hold the
phone! We are now talking full scale, HIGH density, apartment living AND full fledge retail
spaces. Suddenly this has turned from a fairly innocuous project into an ENORMOUS invasive
and intrusive project into a fairly quiet neighborhood. Upwards of 150 to 160 parking spaces
denotes extremely high density living. I also feel that the cost of rennovation, said to be
around $2M would be cost ineffective and would never be paid down. And what experience do
these new owners have with this type of development? These are all SERIOUS questions that
must be addressed. Like I say, I was not adverse to seniors, to me that would be the most
ideal. And I was not adverse to some quiet type retail. But suddenly this has degenerated
into just plain high density normal apartments and retail with no rhyme or reason behind it. It
seems to have boiled down to a nightmare in the making. Therefore we must at this time
oppose this R-5 proposal most vehemently.
Yours sincerely,
Gordy Rohlinger
Virginia Rohlinger
Lonnie Hellickson
Please read at the meeting if you wish and if there is time.
A /t ()P)AAzZ
Page 1 of 1
Narda Wilson
From: Tricity Planning (tdcity@centurytel.net
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:39 AM
To: tricitynarda@centurytel.net
Subject: Fw: Public Hearing 4-19-05
---- Original Message ---
From: Joanne
To: TriciN aDcentu_rytel.net
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 5:24 PM
Subject: Public Hearing 4-19-05
We will be unable to attend the meeting concerning the hearing for a zoning change for 723 5tn Ave. east_
We are very much opposed for the following reasons:
1. There is a lot of traffic and congestion due to the school in the area.
2. The safety of the children as who knows who would be moving into the area.
3. Potentiai for higher crime in the area.
4. Purchased a home in the area as it is a single family residential area.
Thank You,
Mrs Ellen Fries
737 61h Ave.East
Evan White
736 7tr' Ave.East
Don and Joanne White
846 7th Ave. East
RECEIVED k9ril19,
�CI.T p X71 TINS. AND ADQ:� 1E P T-03i APR 2 _ 2005
MACHILL _ : see � s 'RI -CITY PLANNING OFFICE
This letter is in response to your letter datod. mureh 3, 2CG5 and concern3
a propow l .and plon by She dev properties to make extensive chances to
development of the lands form.rly o,capi d b;, the old Kalispell county
hospital onc? curt hhouse eajt. The lend is pcese tlrelassified as
Residential. `she plan would, require chang'_ng classification to 7-5
( .Nixed aseunaceot_.ble. Some reasons for this c0nclWWR
are e as follows:
1. "die ;.:edges school is nepay .ted only by7th Street Cast. '_ccess to the
school �t7 children has D-esently sµfety problems which would be g7ea.Jly
cogplicated by the DEY buildup as praposed. '''has ust not happen.
2. she alley which divides he blick serves power limas, sewer lines
garbage pickup, and fire control access, 7hese cannot be moved elsewhere.
The 01gy shonld he ree tab Dish_ d nd retained aq citV pro ems.,+�.
Z. There is presently considerable son,es t ion, of he ovenues :And Streets bounking
the site. o clinics, L �reer. h,,;use, t,Le JA,-tags s c pool and ten r s -
idensess rr undin" Ue site. 7her i is presently a major parking problem. Of.
BEV buildup it permit ad would Lreatly _. rav yte this situation, 'phis is not
acceptable.
4. ''he proposuc', 017 buildup and plans would certninly have considerable can props rt-,-
vol-z. It is not in the best interests o.:_ resident, a.na property vr'ues_ it is not
crept. bls. At '-3 cla ssific Lion mast be retniaed,
ƒ
..
_
�Ap-
�
=m
.XC
a a
U�—
2 D
2EA
2EPA
2 E
6
3
A
m mi"
VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 300'
DEV PROPERTIES
REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R 3 (URBAN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-5 (RESIDENTIAL/
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY
2.06 ACRES - FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLOT DATE: 3/30/05
FILE# KPP-05-3 H:\gis\site\kpp05-3.dwg
R 3 R" 8" SEWER 0 9'7" BG R 3
899'-8 r_/4'PROPSNORY\ j
FIRE HYD \
EXISTING \\
FOOTPRINT
I -AFIRE HYD.
TOTAL ACREAGE: 2083
PROPERTY FOUNDRY— A: EXISTING 4 STORY 6807 SF X 4
USE: OFFICE, APTS. STUDIOS
B: EXISTING 4 STORY 5584 SF X 4
USE: OFFICE, APTS, STUDIOS
C: EXISTING 2 STORY 4970 SF X 2
USE: OFFICE, STUDIOS
D: EXISTING FOUNDATION OF PREVIOUS
2 STORY, O S REBUILT TAIL X 2.
N USE: PROFESSIONAL, RETAIL
LOT COVERAGE: SO
TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
FTG: T. 19
TOTAL BUILDING E00TPRIN T: 19985.+ 50 FT
TOTAL PARKING SPACES; 142
ROPERTY FOUNDRY
R,3
300'-u 1/4' E99'-10 1/4' R 3
OWNER OF RECORD AS OF APRIL 13TH, 2005
DEV PROPERTIES
CONTACT: ERIC BERRY 206-214-5210
723 5lh AVE E
I i Ke�ISprL_uT 5o_n1
KAL ADD 3 LOTS 1-12 BLK 203
TR A IN SE4 NW4 ABD ALLEY
EXT. PWR POLE
R3
`PROPERTY BOUNDlPY
299'-8 i/4" an I
NEXT PWR POLE E. PWR POLE Rumwe�
aae k:
R Z S" C.I. WATER' ,�I R �Tc: 63 C4 05
3 8" SEWER � 12'5' BG' Pi1 N' SITE CLAN ��<•W ����
5 O.I. WATER' el ---: — wrove - =ho
s " COURTHOUSE EAST PRC,C SHEET !a 4
L
84
LOT LINES.
C
i6 + 1 BUS
F'� sToa nAuv
8 BIKE
BACK C_'.
v I � `-\�G�A1yCS��M MAIN
�NDSCAPE PLAN
3' PLANTINGS
STAGHORN SUMAC
30LDMOUND SPIREA
-40' RIVER BIRCH
5' BURNING BUSH
SMOKEBUSH NORDINE
B' RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD
0' ROCKY MTN JUNIPER- MEDORA
0' JAPANESE YEW
5' CHINESE LILAC -PURPLE
10' CANADIAN LILAC-AGNES SMITH, FRAGRANT
SUMMERGLOW TAMARISK -ROSE PINK
5' AZALEA -MANDARIN LIGHTS -ORANGE
GLOBE BLUE SPRUCE
DROPMORE SCARLET HONEYSUCKLE
C-BOSTON IVY
ENNIALS: FESCUE, ROSEMARY, NATIVE FLWRS
'UALS: LOCAL ZONE 4 FLOWERS
FOP nPPPd✓pl: ' i0 SR I TO FIO�p;
R R R APPROVAL: pS BUILf;
iocpnaM' oww F eer: Fmc
PARKING PLAN cRecRel oar:
�nsnn�r�'ns� Rrr_�D�.cn:n�n;r�mn��
FIRE
LOAD AND
UNLOAD ONLY
2 HR PKG ONLY
TYR W SIDE
LET TRN
ONLY
DO NOT
ENTER
NEW td
0
SIDEWALK \ SC'HOOL ZONE iDMPH ' EN CHILDREN PRESENT
� 22' h—
J I \ II 4?
20' 64
C —2 T
16+1 BUS sT
BBIKE ° z
—RACK
BIKE
RACK
a
A
77777
!I 1 41
SCHOOL ZONED 20MPH�WHETIE CHILOREN PRESENT 3 WAY
a STOP SCHOOL ZONE 20MPH VtttEN OHROREN PRESENT
ENTRANCE TO 8TH FROM 4TH AVE RESTRICTED RT TRN
`DURING SCHOOL HOURS 70 HEDGES TRAF=IC ONLY ONLY
VEHICLE ENTRY
EW SIDEWALK
TRAFFIC PLAN-m_T:
o[vaoPER. o[v PgoP[Rncs - E.I - 50'