Galena planning commission hears resident concerns about Blackjack Corridor, nonconforming uses in comprehensive plan

The Galena Planning Commission held a public hearing Oct. 28 on the draft comprehensive plan and future land-use map, hearing supporters and a detailed list of objections from residents living along the Blackjack/Highway 20 corridor.

City representative Matt Aldenberg opened the hearing and described staff's focus areas: the Blackjack Corridor, how legally existing nonconforming uses appear on the future-land-use map, and the technical constraints that will affect future development. “We have water that's adequate along the highway corridor that goes up to our reservoir,” Aldenberg said, but he added that sewer availability on the south side of Highway 20 is limited and significant infrastructure work would be required to serve new development.

Several members of the public spoke. Brad Petersburg expressed support for the plan and for flexibility in future land uses tied to planned road realignment. In contrast, Wendy Clark — speaking on behalf of nine landowners — said she generally supports the plan but asked the commission to make parcel-by-parcel adjustments before the map is finalized.

Clark raised three central concerns that she said justify changes to several East Side parcels: traffic capacity on Highway 20, stormwater and runoff risk, and limits to water and emergency-service capacity. She cited an older bypass study showing segments of Highway 20 at level-of-service E and said projections had shown worsening congestion, arguing that adding housing or commercial uses before corridor solutions are in place would increase unsafe congestion. Clark also warned that the watershed project, if funded, would first produce a plan over several years and that proceeding now could add runoff without remedies in place. “I'm gonna get flooded out. That scares me really, honestly, a lot,” she said, and urged commissioners to wait until utility, stormwater and EMS questions are resolved.

Aldenberg and staff explained how the future land-use map differs from zoning and described control measures for legally existing nonconforming uses in the city's zoning code and the stormwater ordinance. He noted that nonconforming uses can continue in perpetuity but that the future map can indicate what the city would prefer if those uses are abandoned. He told commissioners that staff can implement map edits and return a revised plan for final consideration.

After public testimony, the commission debated the specific parcels Clark identified. Discussion focused on the greenhouse parcel near Blackjack Road (residents asked that it be shown as single-family residential rather than commercial), a small parcel owned by a local landowner (asked to be mapped rural/agriculture), larger Petersburg-area parcels, several hillside parcels, the Gateway Park area, and a large set of contested "Parker" parcels that are currently the subject of litigation. Commissioners generally agreed to change several East Side parcels to lower-intensity designations, but some members said they wanted to preserve commercial or mixed-use options in other locations to avoid foreclosing future development opportunities.

A commissioner moved and seconded an amendment to the commission's handout that would: change the East Side greenhouse parcel to single-family residential; change a small parcel behind North Blackjack Road to rural/agriculture; keep the Merkel/Petersburg parcel as shown on the map; change a large hillside parcel to rural/agriculture; leave the Gateway Park area as-is; and leave the Parker parcels as-is pending the court process. The motion was seconded during the meeting record. The transcript does not include a recorded final roll-call vote on that specific amendment or a final commission recommendation to the City Council.

Next steps: staff said the comprehensive plan is recommended for periodic review (the draft recommends a five-year review cycle) and that map changes can be revisited if new development proposals or litigation outcomes make adjustments appropriate. The commission closed the public hearing and moved on to further deliberations; the meeting adjourned after the commission discussed the handout and other agenda items.

What remains unresolved: the commission discussed and made a motion amending the handout to reflect several parcel changes, but the transcript does not record the final vote on that amendment or a formal recommendation to the Galena City Council. The City Council will receive the planning commission's recommendation once staff and the commission complete the final steps in the process.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions are taken from the Oct. 28 meeting transcript; the transcript contains a few typographical errors that were corrected for clarity, including a misspelling of "Galena" in one early line.)