Loading...
08-14-84 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY —COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 14, 1984 Members Present Members Absent Kathleen Jukich, President Bob LeDuc L. M. Ormiston Charles Manning Virginia Sloan James B. Stephens Ed Trippet Jack Peters David C. Reynolds Others Present Jim Mohn, Senior Planner Charlene O'Neil Tom Jentz, Senior Planner Jeff Houston Nakul S. Verma, Planning Director Chuck Houston Alan Petersen, Building Inspector Larry Lee Bill Astle, Attorney Nancy Crossman, Montana Wood Prod. Elaine Moothart 2 other members of the audience CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President, AND ROLL CALL Kathleen Jukich, at 7:43 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Kalispell City Hall. Roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR "MERIDIAN ADDITION AND HOLLISTER'S MERIDIAN TRACTS". Charles Manning moved that the minutes of the July 10, 1984 meeting be approved as written. Virginia Sloan seconded the motion. The mot— ion carried. Prior to the public hearing, Kathleen Jukich presented Tom Jentz, senior planner from the F.R.D.O. He gave the staff report and back— ground on the history of "Meridian Addition" stating that the Kalispell City Zoning Commis— sion had recommended a zone change for that area. In order for a zone change to be con— sidered, one of the 12 criteria is that the zone change must be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Due to the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation of "Residential" there has to be a change made to the Compre— hensive Plan. This is the reason for this question before the Board. The recommendation of the F.R.D.O. is that the Kalispell City — County Comprehensive Plan be amended as pre— sented and as is indicated by Attachment "A" based on the following findings: 1. The Montana Forest Products Mill, the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Heavy Industrial Plan Designation to the west; the commercial uses, Commercial Plan Designation and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the north, and light industrial and commercial uses and plan designation reduced the desirability of this site in terms of present or future residential use. 2. Several uses in the Meridian Addition are currently commercial or industrial in nature and a majority of the Meridian Addition development fronting Meridian Drive is already commercial. 3. Light Industrial between the properties fronting Meridian Drive and the Burling— ton Northern Railroad to the north and east will act as a buffer between the more intense heavy industrial uses to the west, will serve as a continuation of the light industrial development al— ready occurring along Center Street and will be compatible with many existing uses in the Meridian Addition. 4. The City of Kalispell is seriously defi— cient of Light Industrial Lands and this Amendment will help ease the deficiency. 5. Substantial developable vacant land cur— rently exists within the site. 6. The site contains adequate sewer and water lines, access to the arterial street system and rail access, making it ideal for light industrial development. 7. The present mixed pattern of development from Meridian Addition north along Meri— dian Drive and the commercial and light industrial plan designation and zoning east of Meridian Drive on Center and First Street West will in the future sub— stantially reduce the residential desir— ability of this portion of Meridian. 8. Storm's Addition to the south of this site is a solid, substantial residential neighborhood and should be protected from any commercial or industrial creep - from the north. i —2— Public Hearing Kathleen Jukich called on the proponents to ex— press their views first. Larry Lee, a part owner in the old Meridian Dairy'building on the corner of 2nd Street West and Meridian Road, spoke first. He stated that the proposal before the Planning Board appeared to be the solution to the pro— blems encountered in this area. The group that signed a petition presented about. 2 months ago would be in favor of this solution. After .asking for further comments by propo— nents, Kathleen Jukich called on the opponents for their comments. Bill Astle, an attorney representing the pro— perty owners of Storm's Addition and the two Houston families in Meridian Addition, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated some of the background in his involvement with the proposal before us.. He continued stating that Steve Petrini, former Planning Director, had been hired at one time to testify in re— gards to the validity of the current Master Plan. His testimony had been in support of the current Master Plan. He stated that it is wrong to amend the Master Plan because of some businesses that are located in that area, some of which are illegally there. To say that since some of these uses are non—residential a Master Plan change is necessary represents piecemeal zonng. He stated that, if that area is zoned Light Industrial, you will not be, able to stop at Meridian Addition even though the F.R.D.O. recommends it. He opinion is that placing industrial uses next to Storm's Addition would impact them. Appraisers have testified before the zoning commission on what will happen. He suggested that they read the uses of the Light Industrial category comment— ing that the uses were not much different from Heavy Industrial. His proposal, supported by some of the planners, is that a residential apartment zone be in this area instead of light inudstrial. He felt that the board should consider the best use of an area. In this area the industrial has been kept to the north side of the railroad tracks. The area has grown up and is very densely residential. He asked that their decision be one of good planning. He expressed opposition to piece— meal zoning. —3 - Nancy Crossman, representing Montana Forest Products, stated that all of those doing busi- ness in that area are doing so under a vari- ance rather than illegally. Many of the homes were built after most of the light industrial businesses were there. It may be true that no one wants to live next to industrial, but some must because Jeff Houston recently built a home there. Astle agreed that there is no question that there is a mixture of uses in this area. He felt that commercial was more compatible than light industrial. He felt that the frighten- ing thing was that if one were to go back to the board members who granted those variances and told them what the cummulative effect of granting those variances was going to do, he was not sure how they would treat future, vari- ance requests. Historically, the problem that has come up is trying to zone according to what is there. Residential Apartment would be the most compatible; honor the master plan and honor the people of that area. Elaine Moothart commented that when they 1/ bought. there 28 years ago it was definitely re- sidential and she was not protected then. Now she is for industrial because of the property value of her land. As a residential zone, she felt that she could not sell her land with .that designation. With the industrial zone, she could sell her property, if she wanted, without taking a loss. Charlene O'Neil discussed a petition that was distributed among the property owners and signed as being in favor of industrial zone by over. 75% of the owners. Every other pro- perty owner in this area except the Houston's agree with this plan amendment change. She felt that what. the Board was doing here made a lot of sense. She felt that their business is being hurt by a residential zone because they cannot change any of the uses of their pro- perty such as the three lots they use for a parking lot. As an industrial zone, it was her opinion that the residents were not .harmed because of the buffer zone. Nick Verma clarified that there was not a zone in the county property. The only change would -4- be to the land use designation of the Kali- spell Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that the petition referred to was filed with the zoning commission last month. Astle stated that, even if everyone was in favor of an industrial zone, decisions cannot be made that way. That is why there are plan- ning boards. He further stated that the 10 foot buffer was not .enough. He cited another example of using a 60 foot buffer in order to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. He felt that you could not buffer a residential neighborhood against a light industrial zone. The only suitable buffers would be a highway, mountain range, or another land use. He fur- ther stated that the action that is being re- commended is a preliminary action to a zone. He stated that this cannot be done. What is done here is setting a historic precedent. A wise planner doesn't ever recommend putting in- dustrial next to residential or even in the middle of residential. Verma stated that when the F.R.D.O. got the re- quest from the Kalispell City Council they asked us to look at the situation as it is now. Historically, that area has been zoned residential for the last 20 to 30 years. It is his feeling that the site is not suited for residential because of the amenities that lend themselves to light industrial. Through vari- ances or whatever way, they have come about the industrial use that has been creeping in and has reached a stage of no return. The sug- gestion that the area be zoned as Residential Apartment as a buffer is wrong. A buffer in his mind as a planner is not to create a buf- fer by planning one. You cannot plan a buf- fer. Bill Astle read a letter from Gary Hill dated December 26, 1979,and stated that he would make this available to the Board. The state- ment read that "the character of this area would remain in confusion until either the re- sidential character is returned to the area or the industrial factors force them out. The land uses, currently, are not in harmony. Thus, we are observing some classical conflict with the area that will not be resolved until either the residential character within the general area is depleted or the industrial as- pects are forced out. In my opinion, the po- tential for residential desirability in the -5- specific area that we are talking about out- weighs the potential for long term industrial investment within the general and specific area we are referring to." He stated that nothing has changed since Gary Hill wrote that letter. The overall thing to consider is main- taining the integrity of the neighborhood. The board's action will set a precedent and the ten foot buffer is a joke. Verma stated that there are other areas simi- lar to this one in character. Some of those areas are Cherry Lynn and the King's Loop area. Chuck Houston pointed out that the King's Loop area was industrial before the residents moved in. This area was residential before it be- came mixed with light industry. Elaine Moothart contested that opinion stating that most of the industrial was there before the Storm's Addition was built. Discussion by the James Stephens felt that the Board needed to Board Members do something, but he was not 100% sure of any- thing. Jeff Houston stated that he would rather it all be residential because his property is not worth anything if everything around him is in- dustrial. If it is industrial, he would be better off to be zoned industrial and a non- conforming use than to be residential for 70 feet and then industrial elsewhere. Stephens asked if he could live with the com- mercial designation? Jeff Houston felt that that would do the same thing to him as an industrial land use desig- nation. Stephens'' asked if there is any chance of a compromise? Nancy Crossman stated that Montana Forest Pro- ducts mill could live with the commercial de signation. They would rather have an indust- rial designation. Charlene O'Neil wanted to know why there would be any further impact on Storms -Addition than there is now if that area is not designated as industrial? Stephens stated that some concern is involved, if the designation is light industrial, be- cause it may allow some bad type of industry in and cause further impact on the Storm's Add- ition. He stated that whatever we do the oppo- sition will go to the City Council with their opposition. What he was looking for was a com- promise that everyone could live with even though not everyone's desires would be 100% satisfied. Stephens explained that currently under the zoning laws a variance to the zone cannot be asked.for. Previously, variances could be re- quested and were granted. This would prevent a zone change by variance. Chuck Manning asked Alan Petersen, building inspector, about variances. He asked, if once a variance is granted to a piece of property under the old zoning ordinance, does it go with the land forever as long as there is not a zone change? Petersen explained that variances, as they were granted in the past, are based upon the wording of the variance. If the variance was granted to a person and they sold the pro- perty, the variance is no longer valid. If the variance was granted to a piece of land, then it is carried on. Manning asked if they were to zone the area RA-1 would the variances become non -conforming uses. Petersen explained that the zoning ordinance as it is now, if the property remained vacant for a period of 90 days, then.the use of the property could only be replaced with a use con- forming to the zone. He further stated that it cannot be changed by a use that is more dis- similar. The variance would not be non -con- forming in a RA-1 zone because it was granted years ago. Manning asked if any other use besides resi- dential would be acceptable to those that wish it to remain residential? Astle stated that anything other than resident- ial or residential apartment would not be -7- acceptable to his clients. Granted an apart- ment zone would be more intense than single- family residential, but it would be a down - step from commercial or industrial. Virginia Sloan asked Larry Lee if the old dairy was unoccupied? Lee stated that they were using it as a stor- age facility only. Charlene O'Neil commented that she had never heard of putting apartments next to the rail- road tracks and a sawmill on the other side. This situation would impact the apartments. She felt that the commercial designation would be a compromise. L. M. Ormiston commented that the way those different properties are in there now and the different uses, it is difficult to envision that even if you got those businesses out of there that you could really bring it back to the kind of residential area that it was origi- nally intended to be. He couldn't see how you could devalue the residents in there any more than currently. Bob LeDuc stated that he could not see where the commercial designation was going to be avoided because the land lends itself to a com- mercial or light industrial classification. He felt that the planning staff has recognized this with the recommendation they have come out. with. Kathleen Jukich asked Jim Stephens if the idea was to continue the commercial designation along Meridian Road and into 2nd Street West. Stephens stated that he wanted to leave the houses as they.were and make it commercial on the three lots next to the tracks, on each side of the residents, and along Meridian Road and then all the rest would be industrial. Jeff Houston stated that he would much rather be residential, but he did not want to be zoned out of ever selling his property. Ormiston stated that things over the years have realistically .detracted from the value of any residence in this area. Even if the house may be a nice home, it cannot be sold as resi- dential. Astle stated that if the existing uses of each lot were listed and compared the Board would find that residential still has the least non- conforming uses. He further stated they will not find any one zone makes it more conforming out of what is there. Stephens asked Jim Mohn if a commercial design- ation along the south side of 2nd Street West wn;.iid be a buffer to Storm's Addition? Mohn stated that neighborhood convenience and neighborhood professional would be, but he didn't feel that general business would be a buffer. The commercial designation would have a considerably less impact, but you may not be saving the neighborhood that way. Jim Mohn further stated that the zoning commission has already made its recommendation and what is at issue here is whether or not the planning board wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan to fit that recommendation. Virginia Sloan stated that to change the land use designation now after 20 years of previous mistakes, the Board would only be compounding those mistakes.. Ormiston stated that in order to reclaim the area to residential you would have to buy out all non -conforming uses. On the other hand, if commercial or light industrial land use de- signation is given this area then those resi- dents who would be non -conforming uses could realize a better value for their homes. The residential growth is not going that way. He felt that the planning staff had put a lot of thought into it. J James Stephens asked if the board had to make a specific recommendation as to whether it would be residential, commercial, or indus- trial? Tom Jentz answered stating that it didn't have to be specific. It was up to the Board to de fine the area. He further stated that the plan amendment was a general statement of use for an area. The zoning commission would be the ones to be more specific as to lot by lot use. Manning stated that the zoning commission has already made their recommendation to the City Council. If the Board were to change their philosophy to any other use than what was re- commended, they would essentially have to start all over again. Motion Ormiston moved to recommend an amendment to the Kalispell Area Comprehensive Plan as set out in public notice and the eight recommenda- tions by the planning staff set forth in their report of August 2, 1984. The planning office is asked to prepare the recommendation of in- tent to amend the Kalispell Area Comprehensive Plan and that the President of the Board shall sign the letter. Bob LeDuc seconded the recom- mendation. The motion was carried by saying aye. Kathleen Jukich abstained because of knowing people there. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Verma brought up the ruling that has come down from the Attorney General stating that all apartment complexes and buildings will be con- sidered as subdivisions. They will have to come up for review from now on before this board and the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Chuck Manning moved that the Board adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ava Walters Recording Secretary Approved: Chairman: -10-