Loading...
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.