Loading...
06-10-97KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION NIlNUTES OF MEETING JUNE 10, 1997 Master Plan Update There was a master plan update workshop held at 6:00 p.m. before the Workshop regularly scheduled meeting, to discuss ideas, procedure and provide direction to staff for the survey questions. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by President Hash. Board members present were Robert Sanders, Walter Bahr, Milt Carlson, Therese Hash, Mike Conner, Jean Johnson, and Joe Brenneman. Absent were Pam Kennedy and Bob Lopp (excused). The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Steve Kountz, Senior Planner and Narda Wilson, Senior Planner. There were approximately 35 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1997 were corrected on page 5 MINUTES Lox is Laux, page 6, Caff-ine is Carlene, and O is Orme. The minutes were approved as corrected on a motion by Carlson, second by 0 Brenneman. All members present voted aye. Change in Agenda President Hash announced a change in the agenda, due to the number of people in attendance for the fifth item on the agenda. Conflict of Interest Jean Johnson declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Board on the public hearing to be heard first. McELROY & The public hearing was introduced on a request by Paul J. Stokes and WILKEN, INC, et al, Associates, Inc. on behalf of McElroy & Wilken, Inc., and Kristin Shane, ZONE CHANGE / Randall Kjos and Sylvia Kingbury for a zone change from County R-4, FROM R-4 TO I-2 Two Family Residential zoning district to I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district on approximately 1.86 acres. The property is in the Evergreen and Vicinity Zoning District and is located between Ninth Avenue EN and Tenth Avenue EN. The address is 555 10fl' Avenue EN, and can be described as Assessor's Tract 30I in Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave a thorough evaluation of the application as presented in staff report #FZC-97-5. Based on the findings, the recommendation was to deny the zone change request from R-4 to I-2. U _ Four letters were submitted in opposition to the zone change. Two 1 �\} Four letters were submitted in opposition to the zone change. Two petitions were submitted with a total of 46 signatures of adjacent property owners opposed to the zone change. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change request. In Favor Jean Johnson, technical representative for the applicant, disagreed with the staff report. He passed around some drawing to show what McElroy and Wilken intend to do if the zone change to I-2 is granted. In the long range plans of McElroy & Wilken, they feel they have 2-3 years left in the pit. With the acquisition of the property in question, it may extend it another 2 years. The intent is to accommodate a reclamation plan to reclaim that land and develop it after it is done. It is physically impossible to double capacity and go on with business as usual. That is the last area they are developing. Their plans are to continue mining as they have in the past 30-40 years, incorporating this parcel. It is not for the intent of encroaching on the neighborhood, except requiring the relocation of the existing home. The buffer would still be there. There are a lot of regulatory agents involved in mining. He passed around some pictures of the subject property, and provided a profile of what is currently in existence, and the end profile after the mining activity. Current mining law requires full reclamation of the property and the end result will be a minimum of a 3 to 1 slope, or a 4 to 1 slope, if the fill is considered fines or sand. The upper half of this profile, which cuts right through the area of the house. From the top of the house looking north, you would be looking at a 2 to 1 slope, to give you some perspective. Looking south, you would be looking at about a 5 1/2 foot slope. The Forest Products is about 58 1/2 feet below the top of that knoll. It is about 36 feet below the area to the immediate left on Oregon St. There is going to be a buffer when it is all done. Someday, this is going to be an industrial park. It is designated that. The mine reclamation plan will accommodate this property if they could mine it. He reminded those in the audience, that this application is for a zone change. If it is granted, they would be back for another public hearing for a conditional use permit. A mining permit is also required. There are currently two mining permits for this operation, which require annual reports, and are subject to cancellation. To date, they have not received any complaints. He went through the findings in the staff report. True, it does not comply with the Master Plan. But, that is in the process of being changed. As far as general safety and welfare, there are a number of regulatory agencies that control these mining permits. Heavy industrial uses , in the area already exist to the north and east of this property. Properly designed, in 5-6 years from now, this could actually enhance the. 2 property values in the area. One of the goals of the master plan is to provide housing close to work areas. No one else spoke in favor of the zone change. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Bill Arthur, 475 9h Ave EN, which is about 150 feet from this property, agreed with the staff report. It does a good job of voicing our concerns. I really think this is going to hurt our property values, if that hill disappears, because our view would be of the batch plant and lumber mills. I hope you will turn this down. Katrina Keiger, 496 9 h Ave EN, across from this property, had concerns about the air quality. They have been having problems for a long time, so when Jean Johnson says we are not going to have a problem, I don't believe it. She showed pictures of what has already been done in the area. Mr. Kjos did not want it that way. It has created an unaesthetic background for those of us who live there. Trees are falling off the back of the property. There are weeds. There is noise and dust. They have not been sprinkling to settle the dust. There is a residue of dust in our houses constantly. Three years ago, they put. a pole in my front yard to collect all the particulate that was flying over.. There was a stipulation drawn up in 1993, because of McElroy & Wilken's pollution. I have a copy of it. He talks about how the master plan can be changed, and how in 5-7 years, the value of our property will increase. Some of us won't be alive in 5-7 years to experience this increase in value. The house I live in, Randy Kjos, was probably a baby when it was built. His father built my house. I have put a lot of money into my property. I have worked my tail off for the last 2 weeks to make sure this goes down. The noise, dust, destruction of property, we don't need any more. Also, the house on the corner of 8 h Ave EN and Oregon is listed on the National Historical Register. Barbara Arthur, 475 9t' Ave EN, has lived there for 32 years, and when McElroy & Wilken first bought the property, they were working it 24 hours a day. That is all you heard at night, trucks, noise, dust. I agree with everything that the others said. Gladys Milam, has lived on the northeast corner for 40 years, so I would be getting impacted from both sides. It is stressful. I can feel the vibrations of the big equipment in my house, and I am surprised the houses stay on the hill. I am right below it. If you approve this, it will destroy us. If Mr. Kjos was still alive, that hill would still be there. He loved that hill when he built his house, and he enjoyed every minute that he lived there. 3 (�1 Ron Keiger, 496 9"' Ave EN, is against the whole thing for the same reasons as others — the noise, dust, traffic. They run the equipment all night long. Clara Ellen Anderson, has lived at 484 8"' Ave EN for 31 years, so I have seen a number of changes in that area. I am opposed to the zone change, because it is one thing to say they will do this, and another thing to have it actually carried out. I am speaking from experience with the city. My husband was the street superintendent until he died in 1971. We had confirmation that we were going to have 8"' Ave EN and Oregon rebuilt with new water lines. It wasn't until 3 years ago that a neighbor and I went out to get a petition to get this taken care of. That is 25 years. They finally did it under protest. When they did work on Oregon, 7th Ave EN and Whitefish Stage, traffic was rerouted onto 8"' Ave EN. It is absolutely mind boggling the amount of traffic that came by. McElroy & Wilken traffic will have to use 7"' Ave and Oregon. If they can't use 96 or 10"' , they will use 8th Ave. We have had dust. There is noise at night that is very disturbing. Now, on the north side of my house, I see an ugly pit. They say they have to reclaim it. When will it take place? We already deal with the threat of all kinds of industrial businesses that go in. We have enough dust, noise, traffic and pollution, now. Sharon Copeland, 560 9"` Ave EN, located right next to this property. I feel that the whole neighborhood will be affected. We have done a lot of renovation to our home. The devaluation would be great. I don't know how much more dirt we can stand. I agree with everyone else, and am opposed to the zone change. Bill Copeland, 560 9"' Ave EN, voiced concerns that if the zone is changed and McElroy & Wilken are only in there for 3 years, what will go in next? Some other industrial use, if this is changed. The property values are going to decrease for the homeowners. Jim Bower, 955 E. Oregon, agrees with everything that has been said about pollution, traffic, and noise. My house fronts on 10"' Ave EN, and when that road is closed, I am blocked off, because I do not have alley access. Delores Olson, 934 E Oregon, is opposed to the zone change. I do not understand how you can change residential zoning into heavy industrial zoning without including everyone down 7"' Ave EN and Whitefish Stage. There is no place for children to play in the area. Every street \l there has such heavy traffic. The dust is always there. We have spent a �J lot of time and money in our property, and no one would buy property at 4 the edge of a gravel pit. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Brenneman asked about the cross section submitted by Mr. Johnson. If there was no way that the property in question was available for purchase, how would McElroy & Wilken go about meeting the requirements to fulfill the reclamation of 3:1 slope? Johnson replied that it is a two -pronged question. There are two existing mining claims for that pit. I have not read those reclamation plans, because if this property was acquired, a whole new plan would have to be developed. The new plan would be required to meet the 3:1 slope, would have to be done concurrently with mining activities, or within one year of cessation of mining activities, which is the newest law. The existing mining claims predated that law. So, part of the pit is subject to new rules, part subject to the old. They would haul in fill to reclaim it. Brenneman noted that based on the drawing, the berm is moved back and the percentage is twice as steep as it is now, so I assume that during this operation when there would be no berm, the neighborhood would be directly exposed to the pit. Johnson explained the basic state mining reclamation requirements, which includes a berm, noise barrier, planting trees, etc. Hash asked Johnson what support he could give for the Board to grant the zone change? All the permitted and conditional uses listed in the I-2 zone could be put in. Conditions are not placed on a zone change. Johnson reviewed other uses allowed in the I-2 zone. What the applicant has submitted for is an incorporation of a future project to provide materials to enhance the project and still comply with all the various statutes and regulations. I appreciate the neighbor's concerns. However, McElroy & Wilken have to comply with the regulations. If we do not like those regulations, we should be talking to our legislators. Bahr noted that there is other I-2 in the area, subject to all the uses allowed in I-2. This seems like a logical extension of I-2. Wilson disagreed that this was a logical extension of the McElroy & Wilken property, the topography of the site isolates it from the existing (�\'1 pit and provides a buffer to the residential area to the west. 5 (1� Hash felt that the change from k-4 to I-2 was too great of a leap, and was supportive of staff report. I know that mining is subject to many laws and regulations, but also know that there are many ways to extend the reclamation and historically it has taken very long. Mr. Johnson has stated that his clients have not done a study to definitively find out how, long this particular site will produce. It could be 10-15 years down the way. Being directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood, that is too long to wait for it to be reclaimed. Perhaps some of the residents have lived through this plant during the entire ownership of their home. Brenneman concurred with the findings in the staff report. I think this was zoned industrial, because it was there. It appears to me that the use is only suitable for the gravel pit owners. It would certainly devalue the property in the area. Carlson commented that topography is the deciding factor for delineating the districts. The lines drawn in the Master Plan, I feel I have to go along with, but since we are in the process of updating the Master Plan, I would like to see this area reconsidered to take into account the topography, rather than drawing lines across hills, valleys, etc. For long term planning and protection, berming and reclaiming the property for uses that are already permitted, would be in the best interests of the entire community. Motion Conner moved to adopt staff report #FZC-97-5 as findings of fact, and based on these findings, recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that the requested zone change from R-4 to I-2 be denied. Brenneman seconded. On a roll call vote Brenneman, Conner, Carlson, Sanders and Hash voted aye. Bahr voted no. The motion carried on a 5-1 vote. Johnson returned to the Board for the remainder of the meeting. GOLD BULLET, Returning to the regular agenda, Hash introduced a request by Montana INC., ZONING Gold Bullet, Inc., and Jackola Engineering on behalf of City Service Inc. UPON / NW Investment Partnership for annexation into the city of Kalispell and ANNEXATION initial zoning of I-1, Light Industrial zoning district. The properties are currently located in the County jurisdiction and are zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The properties are located on approximately the southeast corner of Third Ave East and Eighteenth Street East in Kalispell. The property addresses are 1841 Third Avenue East and 400 Eighteenth Street East. Staff Report Wilson gave a thorough presentation of report #KA-97-4. Based on the evaluation of the application, staff recommended the initial zoning for 6 this property upon annexation into the City of Kalispell be I-1, Light Industrial. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Matt Wattey, representative for City Services, explained that they are consolidating their properties, and plan to move their operation to Haven Field, which they are trying to purchase. Thor Jackola, Jackola Engineering, said that this is part of a long range plan, and are hopeful that this can be processed. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #KA-97-4 as findings of fact and forward the recommendation to City Council that the initial zoning upon annexation be I-1, Light Industrial. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried on an unanimous vote in favor. CITY SERVICE, The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Jackola INC. / NW Engineering on behalf of City Service, Inc. / NW Investments Partnership INVESTMENTS for a conditional use permit to allow the storage, packaging and sales of PARTNERSHIP / bulk fuel and petroleum products in the I-1, Light .Industrial zoning CONDITIONAL district as provided under Section 27. 18.030(17) of the Kalispell Zoning USE PERMIT Ordinance. This request has been filed concurrently with and is contingent upon the request for annexation and initial zoning of I-1, Light Industrial. The property is located approximately 200 feet south of the southeast corner of Third Avenue East and Eighteenth Street East in Kalispell. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KCU-97-5. The request for a conditional use permit was evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria, and based on the findings, staff recommended nine (9) conditions of approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Matt Wattey, representative for City Services, stated they had no problems with any of the conditions. Thor Jackola, Jackola Engineering, explained that there are some storm Gwater drainage issues that we have been working with the Public Works Department on solutions. It is tied in with the highway reconstruction 7 that is happening in that area. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion There was discussion on the state and federal requirements pertaining to the environmental integrity of the operation. A condition was added: "That the development of the site comply with all local, state and federal permits, rocess and construction requirements." Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #KCU-97-5 as findings of fact and recommend that City Council grant the conditional use permit subject to the ten (10) conditions as stated. Conner seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously in favor. BUFFALO CHIP The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Buffalo Chip PARTNERS & Partners and Edgerton School / School District #5 for annexation into EDGERTON the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of RA-1, a Low Density SCHOOL / ZONING Residential Apartment zoning district and P-1, Public. The properties UPON proposed for annexation are currently located in the County and are ANNEXATION zoned RA-1, Residential Apartment. The properties are located approximately 1,000 feet west of Whitefish Stage Road, south of Granrud Lane. The properties to be annexed are various addresses within Buffalo Stage Phase H. Edgerton School is located at 1400 Whitefish Stage Road. Staff Report Wilson presented report #KA-97-3, with a recommendation that the initial zoning be RA-1 for Buffalo Stage Phase II, and P-1 for Edgerton School upon annexation into the city of Kalispell. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the request. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #KA-97-3 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to City Council that the initial zoning for these properties upon annexation be RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, and P-1, Public for the school. Johnson seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 in favor. QUIRK / NELSON Hash introduced a request by Robert and Terri Quirk and Donald and ZONE CHANGE / Jeannie Nelson for a zone change from AG-80, an Agricultural zoning FROM AG-80 TO district, to SAG-5, a Suburban Agricultural zoning district on 8 SAG-5 approximately 26 acres. The property is in the Eastside Zoning District and is located on the north side of Montana Highway 35 approximately one half mile east of the Flathead River. The property can be described as Assessor's Tracts 2A and 2 in Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave an evaluation of the statutory criteria for a zone change, as set forth in report #FZC-97-4. Based on the findings, the zone change request was recommended to be denied. Two letters from adjacent property owners were submitted in opposition to the zone change. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Don Nelson, one of the owners of the property with his son-in-law, Robert Quirk, explained the reason for the zone change request. The lots are basically too large for just two homes, and we felt that 4-5 lots would serve us well. He reviewed the ownership and uses of the surrounding property owners. The parcels in question are currently being farmed, but, as stated in the report, the character of the area tends to be large ranchettes, farming, gardening, and raising animals, is common in that area. The SAG-5 would be a transition between the lots that have had zone changes to SAG-10 to the east and the Panoramic Heights to the west. Jerry Cryer, 339 Woodyard Road, grew up across the highway from this parcel of property. It was an outstanding place to grow up because it was so close to the river. It provided us with recreation that those in town do not get to enjoy. Right now, there is an existing farm field. Every year the field is plowed and there is a great deal of dust when it is plowed and harvested. The field gets sprayed with chemicals. By putting that into 5-acre lots, you are giving 5 more families the opportunity to grow up in an area with excellent recreation, as well a larger piece of property. There was no else wishing to speak in favor. The public hearing was opened to opposition. Opposition Wayne Hall, 25 Panoramic Drive, is opposed to changing the zone. It is prime agricultural land and is a large tract of land. If you cut that up, the tracts will not be practical to farm. ( �1 Beth Sorenson, owns tracts 2AB and 2G, is opposed to having this �J become a housing development. It should remain in prime agricultural. 9 / I Right now, I do have my property in grass, the other 75 acres I own is being farmed, so the dust and chemicals are not going to change. On the horse pasture and grasslands, the dust and chemicals will not cease, either, so I don't feel that putting in more housing is concurrent with the agricultural uses in the area. Mike Manning, 298 Fairmont Road, currently farms this parcel of land. It is primarily flat land. According to the records, approximately 24 of the 26 acres is in cropland. I have farmed it for about 20 years, and it has consistently been a good piece of agricultural property, probably the best one in that area. As a farmer, I hate to see this land split up for housing. Elva Mast, 21 Panoramic Drive, is also from a farming background and feels that prime agricultural land should continue to be kept in agriculture. Mary Ann Manning, 298 Fairmont Road, stated once the land is taken out of agriculture, you can't go back. No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and the Cmeeting opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Bahr noted that for all practical purposes, that although these lots are zoned AG-80, they are 12 and 13 acre lots, that can have homes built on them. A change to SAG-5 would only increase the density to a maximum of 5. Hash commented on the issue of urban sprawl development on the fringes of the community, infringing into the more rural areas. This would seem to be an example of that.. I do not see SAG-5 to SAG-10 as a typical transition. The SAG-10 was a specific zone change to allow the church in the area. I don't see any statutory reason to change the zoning. Panoramic Heights is situated on a bluff, and is not considered as prime for agricultural use. There was discussion on the prime agricultural soils in the area, which are rated as Class II. Motion Conner moved to adopt report #FZC-97-4 as findings of fact, and based on these findings, recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the requested zone change from AG-80 to SAG-5 be denied. Johnson seconded. On a roll call vote, Brenneman, Hash, Conner, (� Carlson, and Johnson voted aye. Bahr and Sanders voted no. The motion carried 5-2 in favor of denying the zone change. 10 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Summer hours were discussed. If there is a master plan work session prior to the meeting, it will be noted on the agenda, and the work session will be from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m., and the meeting start at 6:00 p.m. The Board requested that someone find out how to shut down the air conditioner, as it was extremely cold during the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Therese Fox Hash, President Liza eth Ontko, Recording Secretary i APPROVED: f 11