Comments5-23-05
Subject: 723 5th Ave E. PUD Proposal
City Council members,
I would like to address the Council in regards the Proposed PUD that DEV Properties
LLC has submitted for the Old Courthouse East building located at 723 5th Ave E in
Kalispell.
I am one of the managing members of DEV Properties LLC. I would like to clarify
several issues that have been brought up over the last few weeks.
History
After several months of talks with Mr. Gelinas and identifying my two partners we
entered into a Buy -Sell agreement with a due diligence period on January 10th. We found
out about the newly formed group called KENA (Kalispell Eastside Neighborhood
Assoc.). We contacted KENA and arranged a meeting with them on January 29th. Prior to
this meeting KENA conducted a Survey of the community concerning the Courthouse
East building. Chuck Cummings provided us a copy of this survey prior to our meeting
with KENA. The survey was very negative towards it being restored and it's use. On
January 29th we met with KENA and we had a very positive meeting with the attending
members. Two of our current opponents did not attend the meeting and expressed no
interest in talking with us.
We wanted to give a presentation to the community and gather as much written input as
we could from the community. So we scheduled a public meeting for February 21st at the
Hedges School Gymnasium. There were over 100 in attendance at this meeting to see our
presentation and to give us input. Chuck Cummings again managed the Survey that was
taken at this meeting. By us giving the public the opportunity to have a say in what
should be done with the building and have the opportunity to meet my partners and
myself, we received a much more positive response with over 70% saying they liked
what we proposed for the Old Courthouse building.
We have been in constant contact with various ones in the community throughout the
duration of our due diligence and have taken in the positive suggestions for the use of the
building. We have also talked to every department within the City of Kalispell. This
includes Building Dept, Zoning Dept, Fire Dept, Police Dept, Traffic admin, and various
others within Kalispell's municipal offices.
As you can see we have made every effort to meet the communities and cities needs and
wants in regards to the use of the Old Courthouse building. This PUD that is before you
is a culmination of the input we have received from the community and the City of
Kalispell. The vision that DEV Properties has is to restore the building back to a viable,
usable and functional building that will be an asset to the community. As we have found
through our surveys and discussions with the ones in the neighborhood, the majority of
the neighborhood wants the same. They don't want this building to sit in their
neighborhood and to continue to deteriorate. They want to see something done with this
building and to make it an asset to the community not a detriment that it currently is.
Traffic
This is one major issue that we have had to address with this PUD. It is a major concern
of the parents in the neighborhood as well as Hedged School. We have had several
meetings and discussions with the Kalispell Traffic Admin addressing the traffic issue
surrounding the building. We have made changes to traffic flow within the parking lot to
direct traffic away from Bch St. that in turn would direct traffic towards 61h Ave and 71h St.
this would direct the traffic flow away from Hedges school and towards the major arterial
streets of Woodland Ave and 41h Ave. We have also made some suggestions to the City
on the traffic flow and signage on the surrounding streets that may reduce traffic in the
immediate vicinity of the school.
There are a few statements that have been made to me in researching this issue that have
given me more insight on the traffic issue.
1) The parents dropping off and picking up their children at the school generates the
majority of the traffic and traffic problems. Many of the children live within
walking distance but the parents choose to drive their children.
2) When the building was in full use as a governmental/professional building where
many people visited, there were never any complaints about the traffic being a
major issue in the neighborhood.
It is our opinion that the effect of this PUD would have less of an impact than the impact
that it historically had on the neighborhood two years ago.
Parking
We aren't proposing a new construction just the preservation of a historic building. This
is a large building with much space in it. We have a couple of issues that have worked for
us and against us in this manner. One that has worked for us is that the former owner tore
down a couple of buildings and this has given us more space for parking area. We plan to
reconstruct the boiler building since this building is where all of the utilities entered the
building. This building will need to stay in place whole or in part for this reason. We
would like to reconstruct this building. One thing that has worked against us is that the
building had 20 angle in parking spaces on the south side of the building against the
school property. This was recently changed to a much -needed buss parking space for the
school. Our suggestion was for this city to allow angle in parking on the North side of the
building to replace the lost parking spaces on the south side. Another consideration that
we haven't pursed is that the city regulations allows for day/night parking spaces. This
could add up to 28 day/night parking spaces that would be used by the professional
offices during the day and the apartments at night.
Construction schedule
We have outlined our construction schedule in the PUD application. This is a
conservative construction schedule that was established to accommodate setbacks,
delays, ect... As any business owner knows, time is money. We plan on renovating the
building and bringing it back to a functioning structure as soon as practical with as little
impact on the local community as possible. The building season is upon us and this
project may soon become in jeopardy of missing this year's season that could delay and
setback our schedule. The current planned schedule would have this building completed
on or before December of 2007. We will make every effort to complete this project
before the December 2007 deadline
Management after construction
DEV Propties will handle the management of the building after the completion of the
construction. We plan to hire a licensed building manager who will manage the leases
and daily operation and maintenance for the building. There would also be a maintenance
person to handle minor maintenance around the building.
The Coffee Shop would hopefully be managed and operated by a local entrepreneur in
the neighborhood.
Historical Building
DEV Properties is commented to preserving older historic buildings. We were
encouraged to see that the City of Kalispell has expressed a similar point of view. We
have seen this expressed in Kalispell's Growth Policy and in the Vision Statement of the
newly formed Architectural Review Committee.
We attended the Hyatt Palma presentation that Kalispell invested in to study how to
maintain Kalispell's character and manage the growth that Kalispell is currently
experiencing. The main gist of the whole speech was to maintain Kalispell's historic
flavor. The speaker emphasized "DO NOT TEAR DOWN ANYMORE HISTORIC
BUILDINGS".
In order for investors to preserve these buildings it must be financially viable for them to
do so. If the City were committed to this vision they would approve this PUD.
The Courthouse East Building is on the National Historic Registry of Historic
buildings.
If this building is allowed to be torn town it would be a step backwards and be erasing yet
another building attesting to the historic architecture of the city of Kalispell and this
country as whole.
DEV Properties
Although we don't feel that this is part of the Zoning process we felt it needed to be
addressed due to the comments at past meetings regarding the partners.
The partners that have formed DEV Properties are Dave Rickert, Eric Berry and Vince
Padilla. We each bring to DEV Properties our own strengths and back grounds which we
believe make for a solid team that is capable of making this project a success.
Dave Rickert- has been a long time Kalispell resident that has been in business for over
20 years in Kalispell. As any of you that have been in business know, it takes a lot of
perseverance and personal fortitude to stay in business continuously for this length of
time. Dave has the drive and knowledge of 20 years in the construction trades. His
contribution to this project will be invaluable and is considered a key to our success on
this project.
Eric Berry- has been self-employed for the past 10 years. He has done many high -end
remodel projects with high profile doctors and lawyers homes, offices and houseboats.
The pictures you received in your packet from DEV Properties are projects Eric has had.
Eric has also become recognized in the Artist community and is sought out by artist's to
consult on large public art projects through out the country. He has worked on projects
such as the San Diego Library, Seattle Courthouse, Minnesota Commuter rail project and
many more.
Eric has the vision and foresight of what this building will look like when it is finished.
His experience will prove to be invaluable in the build out and finishing touches of this
project that will make it a place appreciated in the community.
Vince Padilla- Although having experience in the construction industry over the years,
His experiences are in business management in the telecommunications industry. Vince
ran his own computer networking company for over eight years in the Seattle area. For
the last 5 years Vince has managed the Seattle and Portland markets for a national
telecommunications company. He knows what it takes to make a 5 million dollar a year
market profitable, which is tantamount of his company surviving the most difficult times
in telecomm history. Vince has the knowledge it takes to establish processes and metrics
and financial management that makes a company a success.
Vince will be managing the financial and high-level management of Dev Properties.
All the Mangers will be working on the building on a daily basis and actively involved
with the project through to completion.
Financial
Contrary to what our opponents have stated we have taken an extensive look at the
financial feasibility of all options available to us concerning this building. Tearing down
the building is not a viable option financially. If it were a viable option the building
would have sold at the first auction and for a much larger sale amount. The building had
to be put up for auction a second time before Mr. Gelinas purchased it.
We at DEV Properties are committed to saving the building and feel it would be a
travesty to see it tore down. We have looked at the various options available to us with
the building remaining standing. The proposal before you is what we have found to be the
most financially viable option that would give us the greatest opportunity for success.
Fortunately it also seems to be what the majority of the community finds as an acceptable
use of the building.
Conclusion
As you can see the partners of DEV Properties LLC have gone to great lengths to reach
out to the community and gather input from as many people as possible. Prior to the May
3151 Workshop meeting we distributed by hand 300 fliers to the surrounding
neighborhood. This is approximately double the amount of fliers and area that the cities
mailer was mailed to. We were able to talk personally to 40 people of which only one
expressed concern about the traffic. We want to do what is acceptable to the
neighborhood and have demonstrated this during the entire process. Please don't let a few
force a decision contrary to what the majority has expressed they would like to see done
with the building. We are as concerned as the next person about Kalispell losing its
character. We want to have a part in preserving the historical character of Kalispell and
ask the board allows us to have a part in this.
Sincerely
DEV Properties LLC
Vince Padilla
vince@devproperties.com
735 4th Ave. E.
Kalispell, Mt 59901
May 17, 2005
Kalispell City Council
312 1 st Ave. E.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Kalispell City Council:
The Courthouse East project can't go through without two zone changes. The
first one is a change from R3, single family residential, to R5, residential/professional.
The change from R3 to R5 must be considered first, before any consideration of PUD
zoning because without the R5, the PUD, as proposed, cannot be done.
This is an edited version of what I said at the City Council meeting on May 16.
Apparently no one heard a word I said, but I thought I'd send this anyway so you can't
say no one told you so.
Before this Council can change the zoning as requested it must make factual
findings that such a change --from R3 to R5--meets the 12 tests required by the
Montana Supreme Court, the Montana Code Annotated and the City of Kalispell
Ordinances. The Staff Report doesn't make the factual findings which are required.
In fact, it simply avoids answering most of the questions at all and then assumes R5
zoning while it explores the 12 tests as being applicable to PUD zoning only. Instead
of addressing the issues of prevention, compliance and promotion of neighborhood
benefit required by the 12 tests, it talks about ways to mitigate the problems which this
zone change will create.
The Staff report is a faulty report, and if you, the City Council, rely on it to find that
R5 zoning is appropriate you may be found to have abused your discretion as a quasi-
judicial body in this situation and subject the City to a law suit that is a slam dunk in
favor of anyone wishing to prosecute it. I don't think that's what you want. At least, I
hope it isn't what you want.
1. Does a change to R5 zoning comply with local growth policy? The whole
neighborhood is zoned R3, Urban Single Family Residential which allows for 12
single family lots on a city block. The Kalispell Growth Policy agrees with this. The
Staff Report says the existing zoning "anticipates up to 12 dwellings per acre. Well
that's not quite true. If a developer can get a Conditional Use Permit, he might be able
to build 12 dwellings. But the zoning of R3 doesn't "anticipate" 12 dwellings per acre,
it "anticipates" 6 dwellings per acre.
According to the Staff Report, the proposed R5 zoning does not allow
multifamily dwellings such as the apartments being described here. Of course, it
goes without saying that R3 doesn't allow for it either. Then there are plans for 65
business -offices and retail --even a convenience store --to go into the same space.
The Staff report says, "...The proposed office component of the R5 zoning
designation is NOT anticipated under the growth policy for this area."
So neither apartments nor retail nor offices are contemplated for this area
under the Kalispell Growth Policy.
2. Will R5 zoning lessen congestion in the streets? The operative word
here is lessen. The Staff Report says, "This project is not designed necessarily to
lessen congestion in the street." That's because it won't lessen congestion in the
streets. More cars and more people in a small area never lessens congestion in the
streets.
3. Will R5 make us safer from fire, panic and other dangers? Safer is the
operative word here. No, it won't make us safer. It could make us less safe if there
were to be a fire in the building or any other crisis. The Staff Report doesn't really
address this issue.
There are many places where there are no sidewalks for pedestrians to use in
the area of this building. You have to take to the street to get around. This will be
more dangerous the more cars and people there are moving around in the
neighborhood. Certainly, it won't make us or our children safer from danger. And
what about the kids coming and going from Hedges School. Will they be safer for this
zone change? I don't think so.
4. Will RS promote the health and general welfare of our neighborhood?
Promote is the operative word here. The Staff Report doesn't address this at all. It
talks about "historical value", landscaping and "Integration into the neighborhood."
But only a portion of the building is actually historical and it is impossible to "integrate"
the building into the neighborhood. The answer, therefore, is No, R5 zoning will not
promote anyone's welfare in the neighborhood. It will actually degrade health and
welfare by placing this kind of density with its traffic, crime and congestion in the
middle of what is now a residential neighborhood.
5. Will R6 provide adequate light and air in our neighborhood? According to
the Staff Report, "The... building exceeds the 35 foot height limit". Take a look for
yourself. Which provides better light and air, a residential block with 12 single family
homes on it or a large apartment building/office building complex/parking lot the
building being taller than the 35 foot maximum allowed by city ordinance?
Also, if you take a walk in the morning down the west side of 5th Av. E. on that
block, you will see that the homes to the west of the building don't get morning sun at
all.
6. Will this project prevent overcrowding the land? The Staff Report
combines this question with #7. It doesn't even mention the word "PREVENT" which
is the operative word here. It says overcrowding "may be manageable." But that's not
what the question asks.
4f course R5 zoning won't prevent overcrowding. It will contribute to it. 30
apartments, 65 office spaces, restaurant and other retail spaces and the 200 plus
cars that come with it will cause the land and the area around it to be far more
congested than it is now.
7. Will this project prevent an undue concentration of people? Again,
PREVENT is the operative word. No, it won't. Single family residential homes on the
12 available lots would house approximately 48 people assuming an average of four
to a family. This project would house and provide offices to, conservatively, 150
people.
8. Will R5 zoning and this project facilitate the adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements?
Facilitate is the operative word here. This project won't facilitate anything. There are
water, sewer, schools and parks already in the area. But this project will make them
less adequate. Usage will be greater in all four of those areas. Plus, transportation
in the district will be more difficult with the influx of 200 plus cars and many more
people every day on the one-way streets and narrow side streets. Even the Staff
Report says, "...adequate provision of public services should be further and more
fully assessed.
9. Would a zone change to R5 give due consideration to the particular
suitability of the property for use as apartments, offices and retail outlets? There
are several reasons why this property is not suitable for the proposed plan. To begin
with, a mixed use PUD required a MINIMUM of 20 acres according to City ordinance.
The building was, until 30 years ago, a nonconforming use. It then continued to
function as county offices by virtue of a special use variance given to the county by the
city. A nonconforming use is, by definition, not suitable or compatible with the district
in which it sits.
This building is an anomaly in the middle of a nice old residential
neighborhood. The building needs to come down so something suitable and
compatible can be built there.
The fact that it is there and has been for years is not an argument for keeping it
there. It doesn't belong there.
10. Would a zoning of R5 give reasonable consideration to the character of
the district? The Staff Report says talks about the context of the neighborhood and
then goes on to say, "This building does not fit well into this context ..because of its
size and scale and the potential for high impacts associated with residential density
and the professional offices." I agree, the answer to the question is NO. It would be
spot zoning. The building doesn't belong here. The density of uses proposed
doesn't belong here. There is no way to make this building fit.
11. Would R5 on that city block conserve the value of our homes? The
Staff Report doesn't really answer this question. We probably won't really know the
answer to that question until all is complete. By then it will be too late should the
result be a negative one.
12. Will a change to R5 on that city block encourage the most appropriate
use of the land throughout the district? The Staff Report doesn't answer this
question. It talks about the Courthouse building as isolated from the neighborhood. It
doesn't discuss land use throughout the district.
ENCOURAGE is the operative word here. The proposed use would, in fact,
discourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the district. Think how
these things have a way of creeping out from themselves. R5 on that block will be
used to justify R5 on my block next and, perhaps, your block after that. Once a
commercial use is planted in the middle of a residential neighborhood, it grows like
topsy. The City would be hard pressed to deny R5 to property adjacent to the Court
House East property once it has been zoned R5.
Ah, but the people who support this pro-ject will tell you that most eople in
the neighborhood want this project to go forward
They'll tell you there's a survey that proves this. But that purported survey is
invalid by any measure. These three men came to Hedges School. They talked in
glowing terms about how they were going to use this building to make a contribution
to the neighborhood; how it would be artistic; how it would promote art; how it would
provide housing for seniors and artists and some office space; how it would be lovely
to look at and bring the community together. They showed us some very nice slides
of rooms in buildings in other cities --big cities --which were not designed or built by
these men and have absolutely no relationship to the current proposal. They didn't
explain anything that might detract from their project. They didn't allow any discussion
or time for questions. Then they passed out a questionnaire. We don't know if most
of the people who filled out those questionnaires would be directly affected by this
project. The people who answered didn't know what they were agreeing to. It was
just something that appeared to be a lovely dream.
But more importantly, it really doesn't matter who and how many people like the
idea proposed by these three men. What does matter is the facts in answer to the 12
tests that must be realistically addressed before any zone change can be granted.
In the Montana Supreme Court case of Lowe v. City of Missoula, 525 P2d 551;
165 MT 38 (1974), the Court found that the evidence before the Missoula City Council
did not support the rezoning decision they made. There had been, however, a huge
hue and cry from the neighbors who wanted that zone change. Nonetheless, the
Court concluded that the City Council abused its discretion in agreeing to such a
change and the Council's decision was reversed.
When you council members consider a zoning change request, you are acting
as a quasi-judicial body. Lowe states that zoning is a legislative act; rezoning is an
administrative act or quasi-judicial act that (must) apply provisions of existing law
to the facts in evidence.
Although there is a presumption in favor of decisions made by a city council,
the judiciary may find that the council has abused its discretion. In deciding whether
or not the city council's discretion has been abused the courts look to see if it has
acted beyond its constitutional power, its statutory power or if its action was based on
mistake of fact. Such a mistake of fact can be found by the court if the city council
doesn't have a sufficient factual basis upon which to make the zoning change in
question. Citizen land use emotionalism is not evidence.
Courts don't expect city councils to abide by court room evidentiary practice per
se, but the council must look at the factual information presented and consider the
probative weight of those facts in deciding whether or not to grant a zoning change.
The results of an informal questionnaire, answered by people not directly affected
by the results and taken under questionable circumstances is not evidence
admissible in deciding whether or not to agree to a zone change. The evidence or
facts to be considered are in the answers to the 12 test questions I just discussed
above.
I submit that there is no evidence before you that would support a zone change
on this city block from R3 to R5. Please act appropriately.
Jo Ann L. ieman
Proposed Business/apartment complex Page 1 of 3
Theresa White
From: Vince Padilla [vince@devproperties.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:49 PM
To: Rebecca Groose Jones
Cc: citycouncil@kalispell.com; Don Murray; Eric Berry; Dave Rickert; Charlette Padilla
Subject: Re: Proposed Business/apartment complex
Becky,
Thank you for your questions.
We have encouraged all in the community to do this as it helps us to see what the community would like to be done
with the building.
I have addressed each of your questions below. I hope that this answers your questions satisfactorily.
We realize that we are not able to meet everyone in the neighborhood's wants and ideas with respect to the building.
But we do enjoy having an opportunity to give you our input on all of these issues.
Please feel free to distribute this e-mail to our fellow neighbors.
Best Regards
Vince Padilla
----- Original Message -----
From: Rebecca Groose Jones
To: vince@devproperti_es._com
Cc: citycouncil kalis ell.com ;Don Murray
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Proposed Business/apartment complex
May, 25, 2005
Dear DEV Developers,
As you know, I've never held the view that the only appropriate development is for 12 individual homes on the
Old Hospital property While I can appreciate the necessity to look at creative options, I am opposed to the intense
use you propose, in particular, the commercial element and lack of parking. It has never been proven to me that this
level of intensity (and scarafice by your immediate neighbors) is necessary for your company to make any profit.
However, If a case can be articulated that allows for a high quality restoration of the ORIGINAL structure and
provides for a significantly moderated use with aesthetic landscaping( instead of a half block parking lot) than I
would think nearby neighbors would find it considerably more acceptable.
• DEV-The City of Kalispell passed a resolution to have all commercial building be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Committee. We would be happy to work the this committee to address the various
aspects of the building and landscaping of the building. We agree that the North end doesn't match the rest of
the building. We could look at installing window dressings as well as other architectural enhancements
to increase the continuity of the building.
Upon the inquiry of Board member Brian Schutt, you said, at the Zoning meeting that you'd be willing to
look at eliminating the commercial element (as that's what makes the parking so intense.) You and I then
spoke at length after the City Council meeting about eliminating the commercial element and utilizing the
5/26/2005
Proposed Business/apartment complex Page 2 of 3
block for residential development only, which you again agreed to look at. I appreciate your spirit of
cooperation in fully exploring this avenue and it would be helpful to know where you're at in this process.
• DEV-The retail space allocated in the PUD is a Coffee shop that has been openly accepted by the majority of
the neighborhood. DEV has been approached by several individuals who live in the community that have
expressed interest in owning or managing it. This is the only retail space proposed. The Professional space is
an integral part on our PUD as it stands right now. We at DEV feel that we should have professional space in
the building. The business's operated in this space would likely be business owned by ones who live in the
neighborhood and would be offering needed services to the surrounding community.
• DEV- We are planning a phased build -out of the building. We would consider during this phased construction
to coordinate with the city to monitor the traffic impacts on the local streets. If traffic levels increase higher
than comparable areas in Kalispell we can address making changes to the traffic flows and building
occupancy to correct the traffic in a proactive manor.
In our own spirit of cooperation many of us in in the nearby neighborhood are endeavoring to further
understand your proposal in order to find the things that all parties agree on. At a recent BBQ the following
questions arose that no one was "sure" of the answers.
• Could you please clarify the names you're using for the floors of the structure?
• DEV- There is some confusion as to how we are naming the floors. This is how we are naming them going
forward. Basement, Main Floor, Second Floor and Top floor (or may be called third floor). The reason we call
it the basement level is because the majority of this floor is at least partially below grade with the exception of
the south end.
• Is the 20,000 square feet of professional office space situated on the main floors of all three wings AND and
all floors of the north wing?
• DEV- The professional office space will occupy the entire north end. The middle section will contain the
remainder of the professional space on the Basement floor, Main floor and the Second floors. The south wing
and top floor of the middle section will be occupied by the apartments with the community room on the
basement level.
• Can you please give me your estimate for a minimum and a maximum number of professional office /
businesses you propose? (Looking for units, not square footage).
• DEV- This will largely be determined by who we find to occupy this space. We plan to build out the spaces to
the amount of space meet the tenants needs. Industry average for office space is around 1500-200 sq ft. With
this spacing estimates we would have 10-13 Tenants in the building. If you are interested in the amount of
people that will occupy these spaces, industry standard is 1 person to 400 square feet of office space.
• Are medical offices excluded? (they generate so much more traffic )
• DEV- Medical office space is not intended or wanted for tenancy in this building. This is due to the fact
that they are traffic intensive business's. We are hoping to attract local business owners that live in the
neighborhood or ones that are interested in starting business's that are close to their homes.
• Given that your proposal is in the heart of a long established residential district and adjacent from a grade
school, has DEV (or some other entity ) done any kind of Business Feasibility, Environmental, Traffic or
Neighborhood Impact study on this proposed commercial project adjacent from a grade school and in the
middle of a residential district,?
• DEV- The City of Kalispell has recently conducted traffic studies in the area. We have been told that the
traffic is at lower than normal levels. The only exception to this is that around Hedges school before and after
school there are higher levels of traffic. This is disconcerting to the city and the teachers since many of the
children attending the school live within walking distance to the school. We have included steps within the
5/26/2005
Proposed Business/apartment complex
PUD to route traffic away from the school with traffic exiting to the north and east of the building.
Page 3 of 3
• If such a Study exists, could neighbors please review it ?
• DEV- I will provide you with a copy of the traffic study as soon as it is made available us.
• Could you please provide specifics about the Community Room
- - What will the allowed uses & events be? (theater, live music, reunions, weddings?)
- - Who will be allowed to use it?
- - How much does it cost?
- - Is it a rental facility for anyone in the community? (Weddings, reunions, etc.)
- - What is the maximum capacity of people for this community room
- - Where in the plans have you allocated parking for such use and events?
DEV- The Community room is an amenity for the tenants of the building only. Due to the parking requirements it has
become evident to us that the room can not be available to the public for use.
. Could you please provide a clearer picture of the scope of outdoor "events"? More details, please, on:
- - what ARE the outdoor events? (live concerts, outdoor cinema, weekly flea market ???)
- - Approximately how many events?
- - What are the times of day or night they'll be allowed to function?
- - Are the events open to the public?
- - What is the maximum number of attendees at these events
- - Where will attendees park?
• DEV- These were some suggestions that were brought up at various meetings DEV has held in the past. DEV
would be happy to host a community gathering after construction to discuss these possibilities and any others
that the community would like to see and who would coordinate them. There are no events included or
proposed as part of this PUD.
Thanks very much for taking a moment to answer these questions. As you know this is a very short timeline
making your swift email response just as greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Becky Groose Jones
630 5th Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
5/26/2005
Page 1 of 1
Theresa White
From: Vince Padilla [vince@devproperties.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:15 PM
To: citycouncil@kalispell.com
Cc: Eric Berry; Charlette Padilla; Dave Rickert
Subject: Letter from DEV Properties concerning the Old Courthouse PUD
Council Members,
Please find attached a letter addressing the Proposed PUD for the Old Courthouse East building?
It is hoped that this letter will answer your questions concerning the building and how we came up with the content of this PUD?
I would be happy to answer any additional questions you may have concerning this PUD proposal.
Regards
DEV Properties LLC
Vince Padilla
206.909.3398
vince9devproperties.com
5/26/2005
ProposO Business/apartment complex Page 1 of 2
Theresa White
From: Rebecca Groose Jones [rebecca@montanasky.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:16 PM
To: vince@devproperties.com
Cc: citycouncil@kalispell.com; Don Murray
Subject: Proposed Business/apartment complex
May, 25, 2005
Dear DEV Developers,
As you know, I've never held the view that the only appropriate development is for 12 individual homes on the Old
Hospital property While I can appreciate the necessity to look at creative options, I am opposed to the intense use you
propose, in particular, the commercial element and lack of parking. It has never been proven to me that this level of
intensity (and scarafice by your immediate neighbors) is necessary for your company to make any profit. However, If a
case can be articulated that allows for a high quality restoration of the ORIGINAL structure and provides for a
significantly moderated use with aesthetic landscaping( instead of a half block parking lot) than I would think nearby
neighbors would find it considerably more acceptable.
Upon the inquiry of Board member Brian Schutt, you said, at the Zoning meeting that you'd be willing to look at
eliminating the commercial element (as that's what makes the parking so intense.) You and I then spoke at length after
the City Council meeting about eliminating the commercial element and utilizing the block for residential
development only, which you again agreed to look at. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation in fully exploring this
avenue and it would be helpful to know where you're at in this process.
In our own spirit of cooperation many of us in in the nearby neighborhood are endeavoring to further understand
your proposal in order to find the things that all parties agree on. At a recent BBQ the following questions arose that
no one was "sure" of the answers.
• Could you please clarify the names you're using for the floors of the structure?
• Is the 20,000 square feet of professional office space situated on the main floors of all three wings AND and all
floors of the north wing?
• Can you please give me your estimate for a minimum and a maximum number of professional office /
businesses you propose? (Looking for units, not square footage).
. Are medical offices excluded? (they generate so much more traffic )
• Given that your proposal is in the heart of a long established residential district and adjacent from a grade school,
has DEV (or some other entity ) done any kind of Business Feasibility, Environmental, Traffic or
Neighborhood Impact study on this proposed commercial project adjacent from a grade school and in the
middle of a residential district,?
. If such a Study exists, could neighbors please review it ?
5/26/2005
Proposed Business/apartment complex
. Could you please provide specifics about the Community Room
Page 2 of 2
- - What will the allowed uses & events be? (theater, live music, reunions, weddings?)
- - Who will be allowed to use it?
- - How much does it cost?
- - Is it a rental facility for anyone in the community? (Weddings, reunions, etc.)
- - What is the maximum capacity of people for this community room
- - Where in the plans have you allocated parking for such use and events?
• Could you please provide a clearer picture of the scope of outdoor "events"? More details, please, on:
- - what ARE the outdoor events? (live concerts, outdoor cinema, weekly flea market ???)
- - Approximately how many events?
- - What are the times of day or night they'll be allowed to function?
- - Are the events open to the public?
- - What is the maximum number of attendees at these events
- - Where will attendees park?
Thanks very much for taking a moment to answer these questions. As you know this is a very short timeline making
your swift email response just as greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Becky Groose Jones
630 5th Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
5/26/2005
May 27, 2005
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
312 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Members of Kalispell City Council:
We at the Montana State Historic Preservation Office support DEV Properties' efforts to
rehabilitate the Courthouse East Building, which is a contributing property to the
Kalispell East Side Historic District. Admittedly, we feared the worst in 2002 when the
city vacated this property, but DEV's proposed historic rehabilitation of the building
could be a great example of a municipal building becoming a private property that
contributes to the local tax base.
Aside from adding to the Kalispell tax base, this and other historic rehab projects benefit
communities by meeting housing needs, creating economic development, and
maintaining the streetscape. Introducing new businesses and housing into historic
neighborhoods and downtowns enables residents to walk to their destinations, lessening
traffic and parking problems, while increasing the neighborhood's human element. A
significant, but less visible benefit comes from tapping into existing city utilities,
sidewalks, and streets, which reduces the burden on taxpayers who would pay for new
infrastructure.
We look forward to learning more about DEV's project plans as they develop. In the
meantime, we are available to answer any questions about historic rehabilitation or
incentives available for this type of project.
Sincerely,
Pete Brown
Historic Architecture Specialist
Montana SHPO
406-444-7718
Charles Harball, Kalispell City Attorney
Kalispell City Council RECEIVED
Kalispell, MT 59901
`' ' U I
cis J
Date: 6/11/05
Subject: DEV Properties Court House East PUD Proposal/Zoning Change Request KALIVELL CITY CLERK
Dear Kalispell City Council and Mr. Harball,
I live at 1002 4th Ave. E. and would like to comment on the DEV Properties PUD proposal/zoning change request.
By now you are well aware of my opposition to creating this PUD district based on the DEV proposal dated March 21,
2005. However, I am unable to understand the City Council's apparent position that this proposal can be approved. To
me, it appears that the council is intentionally choosing to ignore Kalispell's zoning regulations. I am writing in hopes
that you can help me understand your position.
At the June 6, 2005 council meeting I asked the council for a clarification of the city attorney's opinion of whether some
or all of the requirements of Kalispell's zoning ordinance 1175 could be set aside at the discretion of the City Council.
Mr. Harball's response was that the council is acting as a judicial body, and it is up to the council to determine the true
facts when widely differing facts are offered by opposing parties. I didn't feel his comments got to the heart of my
question, so I'll try asking again.
I understand that the City Council's jurisdiction over zoning comes from the enabling authority of 76-2-301, M.C.A.
Under this state law, zoning regulations must be "made in accordance with a growth policy", "designed to lessen
congestion in the streets", and the other items of 76-2-304; essentially the questions asked on the petition for zoning
map amendment. My question is not whether the ordinance to approve DEV's PUD application meets these tests ("Will
it lessen congestion in the streets?", etc.).
The City Council has passed a set of zoning requirements, Kalispell zoning ordinance 1175. The City Council is
considering another ordinance 1538 that would authorize DEV's proposal without repealing or changing 1175. Here is
my question:
Which of the following two statements best represents the city attorney's opinion?
A. The City of Kalispell, including the City Council, is required to enforce all of the zoning requirements of
ordinance 1175 as long as it is on the books. Ordinance 1175 provides a uniform set of requirements for
everyone. This "level playing field" gives equal protection to all applicants as required by constitutional law.
Ordinance 1538 must meet all the requirements of 1175.
B. The City Council in empowered to make and change the zoning ordinances. The City Council is free to pass
ordinance 1538, setting aside any requirements of 1175 that it thinks are in the public interest to ignore. The
City Council need only support its decision based on the criteria of 76-2-304 (lessen congestion in the streets,
etc.), not based on any criteria of 1175 ("The minimum land area for a Mixed Use PUD in a residential district
is twenty (20) acres", etc.). Ordinance 1538 is a custom set of requirements, which replaces ordinance 1175
for this particular property.
Mr. Harball, I'd appreciate a written response (A or B) along with any clarification you'd like to include.
For some issues of this proposal such as "Does it meet the Kalispell growth policy?" evidence has been presented both
for and against approval. For other issues, the facts are not in dispute. For example, the site is approximately 2 acres,
or, quoting from staff report #KZC-05-03 / KPUD-5-03 "The R-5 zoning district does not allow multi -family
dwellings". However, if it is the city's opinion that Ordinance 1175 is irrelevant, I will focus my questions on other
aspects of the controversy.
Sincerely,
Chuck Cummings
1002 4th Ave. E.
Kalispell, MT 599011`�
CROWLEY, HAUGHEY, HANSON, TOOLE & DIETRICH P.L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ESTABLISHED 1895
KALISPELL
431 FIRST AVENUE WEST
P.O. Box 759
KALISPELL, MONTANA 59903-0759
TEL (406) 752-6644 • FAx (406) 752-5108
May 16, 2005
Mayor Pamela Kennedy
Kalispell City Commissioners
City Hall
312 First Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Courthouse East Property Zone Change Request
Hedges School
Dear Mayor Kennedy and Members of the Council:
DONALD R. MURRAY
E-MAIL: dmurray@crowleylaw.com
WEBSITE: WWW.CROWLEYLAW.COM
While the relative merits of this zone change request which is now before you is not an issue
on which the school district is inclined to take a position, we are nonetheless very concerned with the
issues of traffic and pedestrian safety in the Hedges School neighborhood. We sincerely hope the
safety for our Hedges School students will be thoroughly evaluated and carefully considered
before any action is taken by the City on this matter.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns.
Sin rely,
Donald R. Murray
Chair, Board of Trustees. School District 5
cc: Darlene Schottle, Superintendent, School District 5
Susan Bonderud, Principal, Hedges Elementary School
BILLINGS: 500 TRANSWESTERN PLAZA II, 490 NORTH 31 s` STREET, P.O. BOX 2529, BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103-2529 PHONE (406) 252-3441
HELENA: 100 NORTH PARK AVENUE, SUITE 300, P.O. Box 797, HELENA, MONTANA 59624 PHONE (406) 449-4165
WILLISTON: I I I EAST BROADWAY, P.O. BOX 1206, WILLISTON, NORTH DAKOTA 58802-1206 PHONE (701) 572-2000
BOZEMAN: 45 DISCOVERY DRIVE, SUITE 200, P.O. Box 10969, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59719-0969 PHONE (406) 556-1430
MISSOULA: 700 S. W. HIGGINS, MISSOULA, MONTANA 59803 PHONE (406) 829-2732
Page 1 of 1
James Patrick
From: Ty Iverson [ty.iverson@gte.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:07 PM
To: citymanager@kalispell.com
Subject: No R5 for the Old Hospital property
Dear city manager,
As a resident of Kalispell and a native of the area, the zoning change regarding the Old hospital property
must be denied. The character of Kalispell in general and the eastside in particular must not be altered for the
profit of big business. The R5 zoning would negatively impact the quality of life for hundreds of residents,
including the safety of many school children, for the profit of a few. Please deny the zoning change request
regarding the old hospital.
Sincerely,
Ty Iverson
620 6th Ave East
Kalispell, MT 59901
5/16/2005
MAY 16, 2005
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING THIS EVENING
BUT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDINGS
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD
HOSPITAL/COURTHOUSE EAST PROPERTY.
I WAS BORN IN THE OLD HOSPITAL, WORKED IN THE BUILDING
FOR 12 YEARS WHEN IT WAS OWNED BY THE COUNTY, BUT
MOST IMPORTANTLY, LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE
PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE THE BUILDING, ESPECIALLY THE OLDEST SECTION, IS
ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND, A VALUABLE ASSET TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED. I BELIVE A
BUILDING WITH PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, SOME SMALL SHOPS
AND APARTMENTS WOULD BE A NICE ADDITION TO OUR EAST
SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL PUT FORTH BY DEV PROPERTIES FOR
A ZONING CHANGE TO R-5 THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS
DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU,
SUSANNE M. O'CONNOR
845 7TH AVENUE EAST
KALISPELL, MT 59901
Theresa White
From: PLJ [pjohnson@digisys.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:24 PM
To: citycouncil@kalispell.com
Subject: Hospital/Courthouse East Project
City Council Members -
Please DO NOT grant the zone change request that has been made for the
Old Hospital property located on 5th Avenue East. Our family lives on
4th Avenue East and my child enjoys riding his bicycle around our
neighborhood but with ANY increase in traffic this becomes very
difficult. There are children all around our neighborhood that walk,
bike, and play. Don't mix more cars in with our neighborhood.
Thank you for you consideration.
Sincerely,
Patricia Johnson
714 4th Ave East
Kalispell
756-1581
1
Page 1 of 1
Theresa White
From: Tamela Galloway [tgalloway@mtdig.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:06 PM
To: citycouncil@kalispell.com
Cc: citymanager@kalispell.com; ".kalispelleastside"@yours.com
Subject: Old Hospitol at 5th Avenue East
I am requesting that each councilperson, The Mayor and the Manager receive a copy in their boxes at City Hall.
To whom it may concern,
I am against changing the zoning from R3 to R5 at the Old Hospital @ 5ch Avenue East.
The Eastside is not a business district but a quiet "Historic" residential neighborhood.
If you lived in the area you would not want to see your children hit by a speeding car or your front yard used as a parking lot.
When we moved here 5 years ago we were told that the Eastside was the place to be in Kalispell. Whypush out the Eastside residents
who have taken so much of their time and money to restore what we were told was a "Historic" residential area.
I would also like to see a safe plan (if there is one) to remove the asbestos in and around the building that includes the safety and
health of the surrounding neighbors as well as the crews that will be involved in the removal.
Quality of life is more important than Quantity....
THIS PROJECT, IF APPROVED, WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF MONTANA STATE
LAW, RULINGS OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT
AND CITY OF KALISPELL ORDINANCES.
* Zone changes and PUD,s are a privilege to developers, not a right.
* There seems to be no feasibility study done for this
multimillion dollar commercial / apartment complex proposed
adjacent to a grade school in the heart of long established quiet
residential district.
* Concerns exist for the potential of commercial endeavors being
unsuccessful resulting in transient businesses, vacancies,
etc. (not unheard of in Kalispell )
Rather than altering the character of the neighborhood for new
residents and commercial endeavors, a larger sector of the
community will benefit from preserving the historic integrity and
character of the quiet residential neighborhood by providing
safe areas for walkers, bikers, runners ?..and mostly ?.. our
children and senior .
5/16/2005
ALES T.
May 15, 2005
Clerk of Council
City Hall
Kalispell, MT 59901
BECKY A. BERRY
To the Kalispell City Council,
As residents of Kalispell's historic Eastside, we urge you to maintain the integrity
of this residential district. We are not anti -development. We would love to see a
vital downtown. We would love to see the numerous empty offices around
Kalispell & the valley filled. We see no logical or good reason to re -zone or grant
a new non -conforming -use status to the site of the pigeon -infested eyesore which
is the old hospital site.
We're certain you have received the email from Kali spellEastside@yours.com, so
there is no need to reiterate the points made in that document. We would like to
say that, though we are individuals who restore historic buildings & have great
appreciation for history & antiques, as well as planned development, we do not
view the old hospital as worthy of restoration. Not only that, any attempt to re-
zone its block to allow for offices or retail is not consistent with the nature of this
residential area.
Since we have schedule -conflicts with Monday night's meeting, this letter must
suffice for articulating our views on this matter. Once again, we implore you to
maintain the residential area of Kalispell's historic Eastside, by planning
something consistent with that for the block containing the old hospital.
Respectfully yours,
r � r
1
i
CHARLES T. & BECKY A, BERRY
May 15, 2005
Mr. James Patrick
City Hall
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Mr. Patrick,
As residents of Kalispell's historic Eastside, we urge you to maintain the integrity
of this residential district. We are not anti -development. We would love to see a
vital downtown. We would love to see the numerous empty offices around
Kalispell & the valley filled. We see no logical or good reason to re -zone or grant
a new non -conforming -use status to the site of the pigeon -infested eyesore which
is the old hospital site.
We're certain you have received the email from KalispellEastsideawyours.conn so
there is no need to reiterate the points made in that document. We would like to
say that, though we are individuals who restore historic buildings & have great
appreciation for history & antiques, as well as planned development, we do not
view the old hospital as worthy of restoration. Not only that, any attempt to re-
zone its block to allow for offices or retail is not consistent with the nature of this
residential area.
Since we have schedule -conflicts with Monday night's meeting, this letter must
suffice for articulating our views on this matter. Once again, we implore you to
maintain the residential area of Kalispell's historic Eastside, by planning
something consistent with that for the block containing the old hospital.
Respectfully yours,
Page 1 of 1
James Patrick
From: Ty Iverson [ty.iverson@gte.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:07 PM
To: citymanager@kalispell.com
Subject: No R5 for the Old Hospital property
Dear city manager,
As a resident of Kalispell and a native of the area, the zoning change regarding the Old hospital property
must be denied. The character of Kalispell in general and the eastside in particular must not be altered for the
profit of big business. The R5 zoning would negatively impact the quality of life for hundreds of residents,
including the safety of many school children, for the profit of a few. Please deny the zoning change request
regarding the old hospital.
Sincerely,
Ty Iverson
620 6th Ave East
Kalispell, MT 59901
5/16/2005
City of Kalispell
Zoning Administrator
248 3`d Avenue East - Kalispell, MT 59901 — Telephone (406) 758-7732 — Fax (406) 758-7739
September 15, 2004
Kalispell's Eastside Neighborhood
c/o 620 5th Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Courthouse East
To the Kalispell Eastside Neighborhood:
We have received your letter of September 10, and would like to explain our
interpretation regarding the nonconforming use of the property in more detail. We have
consistently read the term "ceases" to mean an abandonment of the use. Abandonment entails
more than simply not actively utilizing the property. Abandonment involves an actual intention
to give up the use coupled with some affirmative action to do so. Our interpretation is based not
only on the language within the zoning ordinance, but also on various court decisions and other
legal sources.
Generally, courts imply that an intent to abandon a non -conforming use is necessary to
terminate the use rather than a "purely mechanical interpretation of discontinuance" linked
simply to some period of time. See, e.g., Land Use in a Nutshell, 4th Ed., pp 208-209. There are
very few Montana cases regarding non-confonning use, but Jim Nugent, the Missoula City
Attorney, in Montana Land Use: Current Issues in Subdivision, Annexation, and Zoning Law
(2000), did elaborate on some general principles he compiled from American Jurisprudence, 2nd
Edition, Volume 83; 8A McQuillin Municipal Corporations Section 25.180 et seq. (3rd Edition);
and 4 Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning Chapter 51A:
"Generally, `abandonment' of a non-confonning use is more than mere nonuse...
[H]istorically, courts are reluctant to read intent out of termination for nonuse and
address this issue by construing `discontinuance' to simply mean `abandonment'
and require a showing of intent to abandon.... Several common examples where
nonuse does not imply an intent to abandon include but are not limited to: a)
rental property is vacant due to eviction of tenants; b) inability to rent property; c)
ownership or lease rights are in litigation; d) renovations or repairs; e) intent to
abandon is lacking if the owner was attempting to seek or attract new tenants who
would perpetuate the non-confonning use; ... i) bad financial conditions."
While there may be little case law in Montana related directly to non -conforming uses,
City of Kalispell v. Schaffer, 700 P.2d 1000 (Mont. 1985), does address Montana's stance on
the loss of land use rights through inaction of the property owner. In Schaffer, the City applied a
provision in the building code which deemed an inactive permit to be expired after 180 days of
inactivity when it cited a property owner for construction without a permit. The Court, reflecting
a general reluctance of the courts to allow the forfeiture of rights through inaction, ruled that
additional design work, snow removal, and hauling fill dirt revealed a lack of intention by the
property owner to suspend or abandon the project.
The property owners in this case have shown a continuous, good faith effort to lease or
sell the property for office use, and we have determined that the non -conforming use of the
property has not been terminated.
We hope that this letter addresses your questions.
Sincerely,
PJ Sorensen
Zoning Administrator
Cc: Charlie Harball, City Attorney
Kalispell City Council
EASTSID-E
14) 0 14 140 0 D RECEIVED
v , •PTi,
SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
PJ SORENSEN
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
248 3RD AVENUE EAST
KALISPELL, MT 59901
DEAR MR. SORENSEN,
nALiSPELL CITY CLE F,
IT'S RECENTLY COME TO OUR ATTENTION, AS WELL AS MANY OTHER EASTSIDE RESIDENTS, THAT THE NORTH WING OF THE OLD
HOSPITAL / COURTHOUSE EAST (ENCOMPASSING AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK OF THE KALISPELL HISTORIC DISTRICT) HAS A "BUY -SELL"
ON IT. APPARENTLY THE POTENTIAL OWNERS INTEND TO OPEN IT UP AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. AS YOU'LL RECALL, THIS IS A
HIGHLY CHARGED ISSUE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS EVIDENCED LAST FALL & WINTER BY 50 PLUS VOCAL NEIGHBORS AT THREE
SEPARATE PLANNING AND / OR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. LOCAL TV & NEWSPAPER CONSISTENTLY REPORTED THE
NEIGHBORHOODS OPPOSITION TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES BEING RE-ESTABLISHED IN AN EXPIRED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
THAT 1S ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO ALLOW OWNER TO USE THIS BUILDING FOR OFFICE PURPOSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE CURRENT R3 ZONING PROHIBITS SUCH USE? DUE TO THE COLLISION OF SO MANY IMPORTANT FACTORS INCLUDING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD'S INTENSE INTEREST IN MAINTAINING IT'S INTEGRITY, POTENTIAL ASBESTOSREMOVAL, IT'S LOCATION IN THE
HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND ADJACENT TO A GRADE SCHOOL, INCREASED TRAFFIC, AS WELL AS THE OBVIOUS TIME SENSITIVITY, WE
ARE COMPELLED TO REQUEST AN IMMEDIATE WRITTEN RESPONSE REGARDING YOUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. WE WOULD
APPRECIATE YOU FULLY EXPLAINING WHAT PRECEDENTS OR CASES YOU FEEL SUPERCEDE THE CLEARLY STATED REGULATIONS.
KALISPELL ZONING REGULATIONS 27.25.030:
NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURES (PG. 1 1 5)
WHENEVER A NONCONFORMING USE OF A STRUCTURE OR A PREMISES CEASES FOR ONE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY (1 80) DAYS, THE STRUCTURE OR PREMISES SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE USED EXCEPT
IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED.
THE TERM "CEASES" AS USED IN THIS SUBSECTION SHALL MEAN THAT THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION
HAS NOT BEEN IN OPERATION FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (1 80) DAYS.
WE DO NOT FIND EXCEPTIONS OR EXTENSIONS ALLOWED THROUGH THESE ZONING REGULATIONS. PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES AT COURT HOUSE EAST CEASED TO OPERATE TWO YEARS AGO AND THEREFORE THE NONFORMING USE HAS
EXPIRED. IMMEDIATELY UPON PURCHASE THE CURRENT OWNERS SHUTOFF ALL UTILITIES AND WATER, LEFT TREES TO DIE,
STRIPPED AND SOLD THE BUILDINGS' ANTIQUE HARDWARE, LEFT BROKEN WINDOWS UNBOARDED,AND EVEN LEFT BROKEN GLASS
ON THE SIDEWALKS UPSWEPT DESPITE BEING "NEIGHBORS" TO HEDGES GRADE SCHOOL. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THE ONLY ACTIVITY
HAS BEEN THAT OF THE ROOSTING PIGEONS AND VARIOUS VANDALS.
AT THE HEART OF NONCONFORMING USE LAWS AROUND THE NATION IS AN EXPIRATION BASED ON THE CESSATION OF ACTIVITY,
THE INTENT OF THE REGULATIONS IS TO ALLOW FOR THESE NONCONFORMING USES TO EXPIRE (BECAUSE OF THEIR
INCOMPATIBILITY WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT) SO THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN MAINTAIN IT'S INTEGRITY AND PLANNED GROWTH.
APPROPRIATELY RECOMMENDED IN THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY IS "MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF ESTABLISHED
NEIGHBORHOODS." THIS ADOPTED POLICY IS WHAT OFFICIALS ARE TO USE AS A GUIDE 1N THEIR DECISIONS ON LAND USE FOR THE
COMMUNITY. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP INDICATES NO PROFESSIONAL BUSINESSES WITHIN OUR R3 DISTRICT ZONED FOR SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS.
BASED ON CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE HAD WITH VARIOUS NEIGHBORS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF CONTINUING A NONCONFORMING USE HINGES ON "INTENTION" WHICH YOU EXTRACT FROM THE
DEFINITION OF ABANDONMENT. HOWEVER, AS YOU'LL NOTE ABOVE ... THE REGULATIONS CARRY NO REQUIREMENT FOR, NOR IS
THERE A REFERENCETO "ABANDONMENT", "EXCEPTIONS", "EXTENSIONS" AND CERTAINLY NOT "INTENTIONS"_ THE SALIENT
WORD IN THE REGULATIONS IS "CEASE". MAKING A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR MISINTERPRETATION, THE
REGULATIONS PERSIST IN WHAT "CEASE" IS TO MEAN BY UNMISTAKABLY AND CLEARLY STATING, AND THEN RESTATING A
SECOND TIME WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPIRATION OF A -NONCONFORMING USE.
I "...THAT THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN IN OPERATION FOR 180 DAYS." I
KALISPELL's EASTSIDE RESIDENTS ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND ANY ASSUMPTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS OR EXTENSIONS THAT ARE MADE OUTSIDE THESE CLEARLY WRITTEN REGULATIONS. WE ARE THEREFORE COLLECTIVELY
REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE WRITTEN RESPONSE REGARDING YOUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU
MAILING YOUR RESPONSE TO: KALISPELL'S EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ;C/ 0 620-5TH AVENUE EAST KALISPELL, MT 59901 .
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIMELY ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
Sincerely,
AnnRE
71-
VC
-L7
14
6V 4- A C--
J TA
NAME AWRFSS
3`1171--
CC:: Mr.. Charles Harbali City Attorney - Kalispell
The Honorable Mayor Pam Kennedy
City of Kalispell Council members
0
) 11444� av4
d,2 2
Aver.