Loading...
07. Resolution of Intent to Adopt, Revise or Reject Master Plan Amendment - Pack & CoAgenda -March 10,1997 AGENDA ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT Pack and Company has requested a Master Plan amendment from industrial to commercial for approximately 20 acres near the corner of West Reserve Drive and Highway #93 North. The City -County Planning Board reviewed the request at their February 11, 1997 meeting. The Board recommended denial of the amendment on a 5-2 vote. We have included in your packet: 1) the letter of transmission from the Planning Board to the City, 2) staff report ##KMPA-97-1 prepared by the Flathead Regional Development Office, and 3) Minutes of February 11, 1997 meeting. Under Montana law the Council is required to pass a Resolution of Intent to adopt, reject or modify the proposed amendment. The Council will need to consider the final Resolution at the April 7, 1997 meeting. The Resolution of intent will be available for your consideration at the March 17, 1997 meeting. Agenda -March 17,1997 Pack and Company has requested a Master Plan amendment from industrial to commercial for approximately 20 acres near the corner of West Reserve Drive and Highway ##93 North. The City -County Planning Board reviewed the request at their February 11, 1997 meeting. The Board recommended denial of the amendment on a 5-2 vote. We have included in your packet: 1) the letter of transmission from the Planning Board to the City, 2) staff report #KMPA-97-1 prepared by the Flathead Regional Development Office, and 3) Minutes of February 11, 1997 meeting. Under Montana law the Council is required to pass a Resolution of Intent to adopt, reject or modify the proposed amendment. The Council will need to consider the final Resolution at the April 7, 1997 meeting. The Resolution of intent will be available for your consideration at the March 17, 1997 meeting. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 4321 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, on April 7th, 1986, the City Council adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan by Resolution No. 3641, and WHEREAS, Pack and Company on the 13th day of January, 1997, made an application to amend said Master Plan by changing the designation of 20.657 acres of land located generally at the corner of U.S. Highway #93 and West Reserve Drive and described as a portion of Government Lot 1, NW1/ of the NW'/, Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and WHEREAS, on February llth, 1997, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received public comment upon, and received FRDO report #KMPA-97-1 which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City County Planning Board, adopted report #KMPA-97-1 as the findings of fact, and recommended to the City Council of the City of Kalispell, and to the Flathead Board of County Commissioners, that the proposed amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan be denied, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considers it advisable that they consider the proposed Master Plan amendment and the recommendations of the Kalispell City - County Planning Board, and adopt a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise, or Reject a Proposed .Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. is\wp\packmas.wpd NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the City Council of the City of Kalispell intends to consider a proposed amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, and a recommendation by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board to deny said amendment, said amendment consisting of changing the plan for the area set forth in Exhibit "A", from Industrial to Commercial, by adopting, revising or rejecting said proposed amendment. SECTION II. That the City Council of the City of Kalispell shall consider whether to pass a final resolution revising the Kalispell City -County Master Plan as set forth herein at a meeting to be held on April 7, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., at the Council Chambers, City Hall, Kalispell, Montana, and at the conclusion of said meeting the City Council will consider a Resolution to revise, reject or adopt the proposed amendment. SECTION III. The City Clerk of Council is authorized and directed to give notice of this meeting in accordance with Section 7-1-4128, MCA. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 1997. Douglas D. Rauthe - Mayor Attest: Debbie Gifford, CMC Clerk of Council is\wp\packmas.wpd Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 March 4, 1997 Clarence Krepps, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial Dear Clarence: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the following agenda item: A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on approximately 20 acres of land east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657 acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County Montana. Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board member. Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the master plan, the purpose of zoning and :current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial r zoning be limited to the expansion and irdill of existing commercial areas. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment March 4, 1997 Page 2 of 3 J approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballfield relocation as changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he believes the commercial development would benefit the community because water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands. Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood because of the potential to spur more commercial development.. Larry Gallagher, Director of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North. The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed concern that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of the proposal were cited. It was noted that the . they are in the process of updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and should be considered in a broader context. Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process through public comment needs to be considered on what is the appropriate designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction. On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City Council carried on an 57.2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no. Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session. it is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997 Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment March 3, 1997 Page 3 of 3 Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session. It is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997 would be set. Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, KAL PELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION Therese Fox Hash President TFH/NW/eo Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials Draft Minutes from the 2/11/97 Planning Board meeting c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901 Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903 Board of County Commissioners H: \... \KAL\ 1996\KMPA-97-1 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 March 3, 1997 Board of County Commissioners Flathead County Courthouse 800 South Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial Dear Commissioners: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the following agenda item: A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on approximately 20 acres of land "- east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657 acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.., Flathead County Montana. Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board member. Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the master plan, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial zoning be limited to the expansion and infill of existing commercial areas. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment March 3, 1997 Page 3 of 3 During the public hearing, several people spoke in favor of the proposal. The applicant spoke strongly of his desire to convert the industrial use on approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballf eld relocation as changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he believes the commercial development would benefit the community because water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands. Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood because of the potential to spur more commercial development. Larry Gallagher, Director of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North. The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed concern4f that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of the proposal were cited. It was noted that the they are in the process of updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and should be considered in a broader context. Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process through public comment needs to be considered on what is the appropriate designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction. _ On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City Council carried on an 5-2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no. Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment March 3, 1997 Page 3 of 3 ' Please schedule this matter for a public hearing at your earliest convenience. Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION Therese Fox Hash President TFH/ NW/ eo Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials Draft Minutes from the 2/ 11/97 Planning Board meeting c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901 Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903 Kalispell City Manager H: \... \KAL\ 1996\KMPA-97-1 PACK AND COMPANY REQUEST . AMENDMENT FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STAFF REPORT #KMPA-97-1 ). • i A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, the Kalispell City Council and the Board of County Commissioners regarding a request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City -County Master Plan from Industrial to Commercial. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for February 11, 1997 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council and the County Commissioners for final action. Pack and Company Highway 93 North Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-4215 Jackola Engineering Box 1134 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406) 755-3208 B. Nature of the Request: The applicant has requested a master plan amendment from industrial to commercial for an approximately 20.66 acre site so that he may apply for a commercial zoning designation of B-2, General Business. Concurrent with this request, the applicant has filed a petition for annexation into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of B-2. The applicant will also be requesting that City water and sewer be extended from Grandview Drive, south of Flathead Valley Community College to the site. The purpose of rezoning the property to a commercial designation is so that the property may be sold for the development of a large shopping center. C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed being proposed for the master plan amendment is located approximately 300 feet from the southeast corner of Highway 93 North and West Reserve Drive. The property fronts on both of these roadways.. A boundary line adjustment is currently be filed which creates an approximately 20.66 acre parcel which is' under consideration: The property proposed for the master plan amendment can be described as 20.657 acre portion of Government Lot 1 located in then northwest_.. quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 31 Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. le The site is currently being used as a gravel pit which has served the batch plant that adjoins this property to the south. Both of these properties are located in the county and are currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial. E. Adjacent Land Uses 1. The area is characterized by single-family residential development on northwest corner of West Reserve Drive and Highway 93, agricultural uses on the 600 acre section of land on the southwest comer, the northeast comer is undeveloped a Riverside Alliance Church to the east. The southeast comer has a convenience store and gas station, and the gravel pit is further to the east. North: Undeveloped property and church, zoned R-1 South: Gravel processing plant, zoned I-1 East:: Undeveloped, zoned I-1 and SAG-10 West: Convenience store and gas station, zoned B-1 The Montana Planning Statues provides the enabling legislation for local governments to adopt and implement planning and zoning. Section 76-1- 102 defines the purpose of these provisions which states that it is to encourage local government to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens and to plan for the future development of their communities. This includes the construction of highway systems; and new community centers that grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities, and that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in the future growth. That residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life, and that the growth of the community promote the efficient and economical use of public funds. The current Kalispell City -County Master Plan was adopted in 1986 and is currently being updated. The plan is comprised of three major components which include the master plan text, the master plan map and the goals and objectives of the master plan. All three components are equally important and must be equally weighed to adequately interpret and implement the plan. This request is for an amendment to the map which must be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of the overall plan whose primary purpose is to guide the growth of the area. The proposed map amendment will be reviewed in accordance with the following evaluation criteria: a. Whether c©nditions or circumstances in the area have changed since the adoption, of the master plan which just, the map amendment. b. WhetYieetlie maprta.mendment furthers the`goals.and objectives of the + master plan as a whole: Z' Wam r 23 C. Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations. a) Whether conditions or circumstances in the area have changed since adoption of the master plan which justify the neap amendment. In order to demonstrate that conditions or circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan, it seems reasonable to look at the economy of the planning jurisdiction and the need for additional commercially zoned property, commercial growth and expansion in the planning jurisdiction, land uses in the area and the available infrastructure and services. In evaluating of the local economy and the demand for additional commercial land, it can be observed that the Central Business District in Kalispell and the Evergreen area provide the economic base for the community. The City of Kalispell has taken a proactive approach to attempt to compete with the commercial development taking place in the Evergreen area which does not provide a tax base for the City. The City has done this with the creation of tax increment finance districts within the city limits, i.e., the Downtown Urban Renewal District, the Airport Urban Renewal District and the West Side Urban Renewal District which is under consideration by the City Council. These district are intended to encourage businesses to locate within these areas by providing adequate infrastructure, low interest loans and other incentives. The Evergreen commercial strip has seen tremendous growth over the past several years due primarily to the availability of community water and sewer in the area. However, it appears that there is still an adequate amount of commercially zoned property currently exists within the planning jurisdiction. This is evidenced by the fact that the Evergreen area continues to have plenty of space available for commercial development. This is demonstrated by the fact that existing residences along LaSalle Road, which are zoned for general business, have not yet been converted to commercial uses. Additionally, there appears to be a surfeit of retail space within the Gateway West Mall, downtown Kalispell and along Idaho Street. Land uses and services in the area the applicant is proposing to designate as commercial is outside of the commercial service area where the community would anticipate this type of development. It is understood that the applicant is willing to extend water and sewer to serve the site, but the efficiency and timeliness of that extension should be questioned. It does not appear that other development in the area would require these basic services in the near future. Additionally, the City should consider whether or not this is the area in which the allocation of the water and sewer resources should be expended. It does not _appear that this is the case. Efficient use of existing resources would dictate that the development take .place in areas which have already been established and that have not been fully developed. Furthermore, the master plan ;recognizes that 'industrial -, development is sorely deficient" and that the '"entire planning jurisdiction contains' -only one- half and Kalispell only one -fifth of the industrially developed land normally found 'in a community of similar. size."_ This situation has not changed. It 3 b) does not appear that conditions or circumstances have changed since the master plan was adopted which would warrant the proposed plan amendment. The master plan policies for highway commercial development are found on page 46 of the master plan and are described as "an area which provides for compact grouping of commercial uses which require the automobile and are typically located along arterial and collector streets. Those district within the planning jurisdiction are perceived to occur as compact a ppansion and infill of existing strip commercial developments occurring on Highway 93 South of 13th Street, on Highway 2 between Meridian Road and Evergreen, and on Highway 2 between Reserve Drive and the BN crossing to the north." The area proposed for rezoning does not lie within these established commercial districts. Additionally, these areas have not been fully developed. The master plan policies for neighborhood commercial development are found on page 45 of the master plan and are defined as areas serving the neighborhood populations within one-half to three -fourths of a mile radius. Neighborhood commercial areas are found throughout the planning jurisdiction including the intersection of West Reserve Drive and Highway 93. The property adjoining this property is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial. This area is not intended to be expanded to serve a broader area, as proposed. The master plan policies for the light industrial districts are found on page 47 of the master plan and are described as being "planned for (the area) adjacent to the municipal airport, adjacent to the Burlington Northern tracks in uptown Kalispell and on the northern hinges of the Kalispell planning jurisdiction at the Highway 93 and Reserve Drive intersection and the Highway 2 and Reserve Drive intersection." The proposed amendment contradicts the master plan because this area is specifically identified in the plan as an area for light industrial development. - Goal 5, Economy, of _ the master plan strives for `A healthy diversified economy promoted by careful planning of type, location and design of industrial sites, shopping areas and tourist facilities." - Goal 5(e) states "Undertake activities to ensure that the Central Business District remains strong and viable". The proposed amendment undermines this goal by taking potential commercial development from the core commercial areas and relocating outside of the established commercial districts. Goal_ 6; Land Use, of the master plan strives for `the orderly developi went of , r the planningjurisdiction with am le , s ce for future wth while .'k the r same . time, ensuring_ compatibility_ of adjacent land uses. Goad 6(b). states "set standards .for _the designation or expansion of commercial areas based on compact development patterns designed to meet the needs otitis intended _ a service -area and snot° - :tie desires 6f=tion or �stripr deve The proposed amendment is in conflict wimaster plain i�ecause~ the µ . -- area proposed for commercial development= is not based on compa`tgpattern 31 ;, development. Moreover, it would appear that this request. is based upon a speculative development proposal which is intended to benefit the property owner and developer rather than the needs of the community. Additionally, it would promote strip development by creating an island of general commercial which has the potential to expand along the highway and the other comers at the intersection of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. Goal 8, Public Facilities, strives for "An economical, balanced distribution of public facilities and services throughout the planning jurisdiction for present and anticipated future residents." Goal 8(a) states "designate areas of future development which are already serviced or are in areas which can be economically serviced by water and sewer systems, police and fire protection, etc." This proposed amendment is in conflict with this goal because the water and sewer lines would need to be extended approximately one mile to the site with no obvious need to serve other properties between Grandview and Reserve Drive. At this time, it would not appear that this would be economically prudent of either the City or the property owner to do so. Goal 11 states "Encourage infilling to take advantage of existing streets and services." The area proposed for commercial development is on the fringe areas of the planning jurisdiction and does not constitute infill. The proposal is in conflict with the master plan goal. Commercial development is further addressed in the master plan on page 45 which states that "Excluding several planned or new neighborhood commercial sites, all commercial activity should be directed toward existing commercial areas either as expansion or infill." In reviewing the above evaluation, it is clear that the proposed master plan amendment would not fulfill the overall goals and objectives of the master plan, and in fact, is in direct conflict with several specific objectives which are listed above. c) Whether the amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zonin4 ._ ,,, 1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan? The property proposed for commercial development is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the master plan as they relate to the location of commercial highway development, neighborhood commercial development and industrial development. It is in conflict with the goals of the master plan as they relate to the efficient use of services and utilities, compact commercial development based upon infill and expansion, and maintaining adequate land for industrial development. 2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in 'thes streets? Rezoning the proposed _property fora commercial designation would not lessen congestion in the street, but would rather dramatically increase .traffic on the West Reserve and Highway ,93µ intersection with a the advent of a large commercial development. The proposed amendment appears to be premature considering that the necessary infrastructure required to respond adequately in the case of a fire or other emergency is not in place. Rezoning this property to a commercial designation may increase the need for emergency services to the area. 4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare? The requested zoning classification would not promote the general health and welfare of the community, but rather tend to benefit the individual property owner who may . be able to sell the property for commercial development. The zone change would not benefit the community because commercial development on this site has the potential to undermine the economy viability of the established commercial areas, it does not promote efficient use of existing infrastructure and it would require residents to travel outside of the core commercial area to obtain good and services. 5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on f this site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure 1 adequate light and air is provided. 6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land? 7. Currently this area of the county is relatively undeveloped. The proposed rezoning would encourage premature development on the fringes of the urban area resulting the potential proliferation of urban sprawl and strip development. The zone change would not prevent the overcrowding of land. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people? If this site were to be developed commercially, it is predictable that there would be a substantial increase in traffic, parking needs and potentially other development creating an undesirable concentration of people and traffic. a_ . -"'D " Currently, public water and sewer are approximately one mile from the site which is proposed for rezoning. Extension of services -to this area ap to be premature and would -neat promote-2the efficient use of i�tructure or the delivery of City` 6&rvices. A dditianall it would . _ � w a 10. 11. increase traffic in an area of the county which is not intended to serve a commercial area. This rezoning does not give consideration to the suitability of this property for commercial development. The property has a power transmission easement through it which contain large overhead towers and transmission lines. In .addition, to the south is the batch plant which operates with a great deal of highly visible heavy equipment. Additionally, the site has been used as a gravel pit in the past which would require excessive filling and landscaping beyond what would normally be anticipated under a standard reclamation program. Resource based industries have typically enjoyed a favored status within the state and community as is evidenced by existing regulations governing these uses. Extractive industries such as these gravel pits can be found in many of the rural and agricultural areas of the county. However, it is unreasonable to assume that once these gravel pits have outlived their usefulness that they would be converted to a commercial use. Gravel pits, by their very nature have a finite life span, therefore the State Department of Natural Resources requires that a reclamation plan be implemented once the gravel has been exhausted. The plan would typically include filling and revegetation. It is a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that these areas will be reclaimed and not converted to a commercial use. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The general character of the area is industrial in the immediate area because of the gravel pit and batch plant. Directly to the west is the State School Section land which as been under active agricultural. To the east, the area can be described as rural residential as well as to the north. There is some higher density residential developments to the northwest. The rezoning does not give reasonable consideration to the character of the area, but rather creates the potential for the establishment of a large commercial development where currently there is none, increased strip development and urban sprawl. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Value of the buildings in the area may or may not be effected by the proposed rezoning. The rezoning has the potential to spawn additional commercial expansion which may displace other non-commercial buildings in the area. 0 IN The zone change request does not encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdiction, but rather undermines the economic viability of other established commercial areas. Additionally, it creates the potential for further strip development and urban sprawl in the area. The proposal is not based upon compact, urban development standards; but rather is based upon speculative commercial development in fringe urban areas which is premature and an inefficient use of community resources. Based upon the above evaluation, the staff would recommend that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report KMPA-97- 1 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to the City Council and County Commissioner to deny the proposed master plan amendment from industrial to commercial because it does not comply with the goals and objective of the master plan H:\ ... \IO4PA97-1 8"' d 1 January 14, 1997 Mr. Steve Kountz Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East, Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Parcel #l, 20.657 acres, NW1/4, 31-29-21, P.M/M., Flathead County, Montana Dear Mr. Kountz: This letter is requesting a map amendment to the Master Plan from light industrial to commercial for the above referenced parcel. In the event of any questions, please give this office a call. Ve truly yours, or A. a ola, P.E. TAJ/se Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903 Location: 317 1st Avenue East phone (406) 755.3208 fax (406) 755.3218 u PWV 8R1SS CAP F04 25 I 3 // =770W CA41ER A$ PER SD2'15.5 COR69 &cCOWAMW 38 31 r - Es r REsk 9.3T'2 I �• / 41 S89.571101E ®' �® a f07.43' �.� s •54'aB�E e s ,Soo PARCEL t a / 20.697 ACRES y O J>t. rh a 4= 2 O cl Q m 9 S88.59'57F 464.38' -y �- 444.36' m z � o S00.50'40'W ,-' . f9.95' Ms.48, / DR/YE a� �89.3T28T P' P' 01 so.oa' DESCRIPTION - PAIWE'l. I TIX NORTII,,LrIIANG13 21 Wl•.'li•I',F:f'Ittr7;:1{'M.ItMI?tIDIANIt1iNM(;N'I'ANA, ILATIIPAI 1(OF ' 11N•1'Y, MONTANAI,AN29 U MORE PA► TICUI.AIILY OH%C1t111F:D AS FOI.(.OWI;: COMMENCING AT ')'TIE Nplt'1'111--AS-1' (:OltNl?It OF PARCIiI I OF CERTIFICA'rr OF SURVEY NUMBER 12230, Rl?CottDS UI' I1l.ATI1l?AD CUUN'I'Y; THENCE 1,109* 37'211"W. ON AND ALONG 'fill: NORTII BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL I AND ON ANO ALONt; TIIE SOUTII RIGII'r-OF-WAY BOUNDARY OF WEST RESI?IIVF DRIVE, A DISTANCH OF 6U.00 FI?R'I- 1r0 A SI7r 5/U" Itl?-BAR AND WIIICII 1'UIN'r 1S THE '1'I(UI? POINT ()I' ►11?C I NN I WC; THEMCE WESTRIMY, NOR•1'111 O.Y AND SOII-f-fII.ItI.Y, ON ANT) ALONG !.All) NOWNI 11011NUARY OF PARCEL I AND TII►? !;Ull'I•il I11Cfl'1' Ot'-WAY 11OUNUARY OF wl?:r1' III.-m-vi., 11111VE, TI11? PULLUWIN(' FIVF COII1iSp..": CONTINUING N09°37'7.0"W, A WNTANCI? OF 303.67 PEET• TO A POINT; N00'50'40"11, A DISTANCE OF 19.95 FI?LI' TO A POINT; 1`109*17'22"W, A DISTAW-F; OF 375.37 FI;1•r T'o A POINT; N0201.5'51"E. A in;.•,:::..:. t,.• :;.5'1 PI?I?'1' I'U A i'O111i; NtJ'}''i7'►[}"t A 1tISI�.;aE OF 107.43 FI4F:r TO A 1'OIN'r WIIICII POINT' IS NORTUFh;i t:(litF!!:!' •" 'ilin'I' TRACTINDICATED UN CKRT'IFICA'i•I? OF SURVEY NUM1111t 71160, Itl?CORDS UP FLA'i'lll?AU COUNTY; TIIENCE S10614'01"W, UN AND A1.ONG 111E HAST HOUNDARY OF SAID T'IIAC9', A VISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET To A POINT; TIIENCE" N(19'54'UU"W, ON AND A1,ONU-•9.111. NOWI'II IIOIINOAIfY OF CA11)•TRACT, A DJSTANCR OF 233.25 FEET' TO A POINT' WIIICII 1'OIN'I' 41t?.R ON 'I.1111 I-WHT III(Jrr-OI--WAY BOUNDARY OF U. S. IIIGIIWAY 9J; TIIENCE' SU0'06'49"W, ON AND A►.ONG 3A►U !•:ASI• ItlGHT-UF-WAY HOUNDARY, A DJSTANCE OF 640.64 FI? T TO A POINT WIIICII!DINT IS'" iIil? NOR-1-11WEST CORNER OF PARCEL 2 OF SAID CRRTIFIL'A-11M OF SUNVF:7 N iMlll:It I!./..10; TIIPNCV S00* 5'J' 57"I?. ON AND ALONG T1111 NOUT11 IIUIiNDAI1Y AkW AN VXT RISIV ION`,, T'tll?RLOF,' A UISTANCIR OF 1097.04 FX 1' TO A POINT; TIIENCE N00*07'07."E, A DISTANCH OF fi69. 17. FI?l:r It2 Tfill TRUE° POINT OF IJKGINNING. TIIIS PARCEL CONTAIN;: 7.07657 ACRES AND !;HIL►1?t11• TO AND T(Xit7111?It WI'1'It A 25U-FUOC IIPA OFHEMI!;T))IUN FASItRH:NT AN1) r!i1LIR(:1' T'U ANI) T'tR:KTIII-'R WITII Al.l. AI`lluirrF:NANT NASI{tIF;N'r5 OF ItL•'CUl+D. 0 O '4 H :4 N Po UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLNEY 29 Mr. *2Z3(r WHITEFISH /I mi. I 696000m.E. 1697 R. 22 W. 2q 698 R. 21 W. 1699 (ROSE ORI ZZ, . ......... Jos 26 30D OQ 0 Glacier e rdens em 3036 039 013 • 3048 5346 a I Pit wl-s- 35:: 0 . . . . . . . . . . 5345 0-1 ems. f ta N f Spri C k &h �\.70.3 /K J052t:, 3034 /po xi CIO S344 T. 28 N. 30.-. 3076 vel Pits yal if Course afr ter ank. ut 5343 .90 'N I Z30' -- L — — — — — — — — — — 4 fill Z"t "ase- 9791— 6 ob # 71 2 its 0, All 40 No 1HA 1 *rA /* 4A lit as It set goa:as 1HC,- JB' las NT 5 4 3 ims 4M: to R—i zi 31 1 37 36 36- .1 ni It:' -v WEST RESERVE DRIVE S*10 ..e >4 3A D SUBJECT PROPERTY 3 St&,1 0 VICINITY MAP PACK AND COMPANY WASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, ANNEXATION AND ZONING 20,�657 ACRES SEt�.4211 72,.,9NR21W FILE4 KjWPA-971 # KA-971 SCALE 1" 600'