Loading...
06-11-96KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were Jean Johnson, Milt Carlson, Joe Brenneman, Robert Sanders and Therese Hash. Absent Board members were , Mike Conner, Walter Bahr, Fred Hodgeboom and Pam Kennedy, all excused. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson, Planner II. There were approximately 15 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1996 were approved as MINUTES written on a motion by Carlson, second by Johnson. All members present voted aye. SECURITY BANK The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Security ZONE CHANGE / Bank, FSB, for a zone change from R-2, a Limited Single -Family. R-2 TO B-2 Residential zoning district, to B-2, a General Business zoning O district. The property proposed for rezoning is located in the Willow Glen Zoning District and fronts on the south side of Highway 2 East and is bordered by the Stillwater River on the east and contains approximately 1.10+ acres. The property can be described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 1H located in Section 9, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead, County. Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #FZC-96-06. A portion of the property requesting a rezone, is in the 100 year floodplain. It is unlikely that someone would want to fill that portion, as this year, with the high water, it is completely submerged. The requested zone change was reviewed in accordance with the statutory criteria, and met all the necessary conditions. Staff recommended that the zone change from R-2 to B-2 be granted. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone change. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Motion Carlson moved that report #FZC-96-06 be adopted as findings of fact and recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant the zone be changed from R-2 to B-2. Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote, all members voted aye. The motion carried 5-0. GLACIER TENNIS Hash introduced a request by the Glacier Tennis Association for ASSOCIATION a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an 1 CONDITIONAL approximately 20,000 square foot building which will provide a USE PERMIT three court tennis facility on the same property as the Northwest Healthcare facility known as "The Summit" as provided for under Section 27.22.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The proposed tennis facility will be on property located at 205 Sunnyview Lane which is on the northwest corner of Sunnyview Lane and Windward Way in the City of Kalispell. This property can be described as The Resubdivision of Simmons Addition, Lots 1 and 2, in Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21 West. P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KCU-96-05. The application was reviewed in accordance with the necessary criteria established for evaluation of a conditional use. Based on the findings, it does not appear the parking requirement can be met, and the addition of this facility would overdevelop the property. Staff, therefore, recommended that the conditional use permit be denied. Should the Planning Board and City Council choose to grant approval of the conditional use permit, eight (8) conditions of approval would be recommended to mitigate the impacts of the development. The FRDO received one phone call objecting to the proposal because of parking problems. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the proposal. In Favor Dennis Winkel, an investor in the Glacier Tennis Association, a physician, and a member of the Northwest Healthcare Board, spoke on behalf of this project. He thinks that staff did an excellent job of reviewing the application, and feels that the project can meet the conditions of approval as set forth. The parking issue is significant, and I believe that if granted a continuance, we can show that we can meet all the parking requirements for the proposal. There is potential of expansion of parking in the area. This facility will be open to the public, and can be useful for students and members of The Summit. I request that you delay action on this application until we can present more substantial documentation. Discussion The Board agreed that the parking posed a problem, and agreed to a delay on the application. Carlson commented that he walks in concerned about the parking, the lack with a proposed reduction of existing overdeveloped already. The impact is walk there, even with the upgrade. get their health, it almost kills them. the area daily, and is of proposed landscaping, landscaping, and it being severe. It is dangerous to Everyone driving there to Brenneman agreed that there are issues beyond the parking that need to be addressed. Motion Sanders moved to grant the applicant's request to continue the public hearing until the July 9, 1996 Planning Board meeting. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote, Carlson, Johnson, Sanders, Brenneman and Hash voted in favor of granting the continuance. SAMARITAN Hash introduced the next public hearing on a request by Samaritan HOUSE / House, Inc. to amend the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to TEXT allow "Shelters" as a conditionally permitted use in the RA-1, Low AMENDMENT Density Residential Apartment zoning district, and would be listed under Section 27.09.010 of the ordinance. The Samaritan House has also proposed amending the parking requirements for "Shelters" from the current "one per two beds" to "one per five occupancy units" as stated under Section 27.26.050(47) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed review of report #KZTA-96-02. Substantial research was conducted in an attempt to address the Samaritan House's needs and desires to expand the existing use. Wilson found very little information in her research, and admitted that she struggled with this matter. Much of this revolves around on how we define the use, and determining where it fits in. The Samaritan House provides a mixed service to the public. Transitional housing, low rent accommodations, housing for those who are truly transient, and longer term housing for people who find themselves homeless for a temporary period of time. However, we need to separate the truly fine service that the Samaritan House provides to the community, and look at the broader view of shelters in all of the RA-1 districts. When we look at the appropriate location for a shelter, it looks as if the needs for a homeless shelter are different from those that would be accommodated in a group home or community residential facility. In her research, Wilson found the following development definitions, for a "transitional care home"; "boarding home for sheltered care", and "boarding house", along with information regarding exactly how these different uses can be defined and the categories they can be placed in. Pertaining to the parking, most people who find themselves in need of a shelter do not own a car. Most would rather sleep in a car than a homeless shelter. Therefore, I think that the current requirement of one parking space per two beds is excessive. Wilson reviewed the evaluation criteria required with a zoning amendment. 3 The proposed change would promote the health and general welfare of a small segment of the community, i.e. those in need of shelter. However, it appears that these needs could be met in a group home with single room occupancy and a less institutional setting. A transitional housing situation could be more appropriately accommodated through a community residential facility, where individuals apartments or rooms would be made available for a short period of time while a person finds a more permanent housing situation. A dormitory type situation, in my opinion, is more of an institutional setting, rather than a residential setting. Staff did not feel strongly about the recommendation for denial, however did recommend denial of the proposed text amendment to allow shelters as a conditionally permitted use in the RA-1 zone; and recommended approval of the text amendment to change the parking requirements from "one space per two beds" to "one space per five units". Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed text amendments. In Favor Bruce Measure, 637 2nd Street East, Kalispell, a member of the Board of Directors for Samaritan House, representing the petitioner, asked that the Board reject the staff's findings. I think there is a clear case of not understanding the issue. I fully understand that this does not pertain solely to the Samaritan House, but involves the RA-1 district throughout the community. However, I do not see anyone throwing in $1/2 million to start another shelter facility in the very near future. We are hoping to expand the present facility and provide individual rooms for those who require more privacy. It doesn't necessarily serve a transient population. I have a 1995 annual report of those served by the Samaritan House. Single men - 337; single women - 66; couples - 20; one parent families - 41; two parent families - 37; children - 167, representing 7,413 nights of shelter given by Samaritan House. This is the only shelter in northwest Montana. If you don't have this shelter, those 7,413 nights are going to be spent on Flathead River in tents, in automobiles or on the streets and alleys, and I think the folks of Kalispell will notice that. As to the geographical groupings, the following should refute immediately the allusion of a transient population. The numbers represent a portion of the 7,413 nights, in both adult single and family units. Flathead County - 220; in -state - 44; out-of-state - 224. Some of these folks have been displaced for a short period of time. 4 Staff finds it very difficult to define, and I understand. The issue that was discussed in 1990 by this Board, was what most closely fits the definition of the use. At that time, a homeless shelter was proposed near the Marion -Finley Friendship House. This is not within an R-4 district, nor is the management the same. Staff is there 24 hours per day. It was defined as coming closest to a "boarding house". If Samaritan House, as it is presently operated, could show that it collected $1, or even 25c from any of those individuals who stay at Samaritan House, would fall under the conditional use of a boarding house and could continue to operate as it does. The text presently includes boarding houses, but we probably couldn't get a grant to expand a boarding house. The definitions are what are constraining us. This is not something that can wait. There is a need out there. Staff states that "a number of issues ... could be better addressed in the context of specific types of facilities, such as for the disabled, the elderly, etc." These special needs are reserved for these residential areas. They are somehow less damaging to a residential neighborhood, than the facility we propose. This facility cannot be clearly conceptualized as a shelter. There are a number of units that are rented out that support the shelter units. The length of stay averages are as follows: to one week - 275; through 1 month - 320; over one month - 42. This represents groups of people who come in who have been displaced by flooding, by poverty, loss of job. We get all the overflow from the battered women's shelter, all of the overflow of the elderly people transitioning out of their houses; all of the overflow from young people thrown out of the houses; unwed mothers, alcohol and drug abusers, so we already serve all of those populations, probably to a larger degree than the facilities designed for them. I have to disagree with FRDO that these needs are met by existing facilities. Those needs are not being met, or those people would not be at our door 2-3 days after leaving those facilities. I take exception to the comparison to other communities in the region. It is clear that none of them address shelters, at all. The places that do allow them are relatively urban. Boise and Spokane serve a much larger population, so I don't think they are comparable. It is noted in the application, that there are low traffic volumes. These people do not own cars. There are facilities nearby that are very important to these populations: e.g. the Salvation Army, Sykes Grocery, the post office, a playground for children, etc. The requested parking spaces of one per 5 living units is probably a very safe number as substantiated by the information provided. Patrons at Samaritan House do not own automobiles. I realize this pertains only to this particular site, but, again, the kind of money to put up this kind of facility anywhere else in 5 this community is not going to happen now or in the immediate ,future. We are disturbed by the continual referral to transients roaming the neighborhoods. These people are very motivated to find jobs, to find housing, to find some way to get back on their feet. Most are compelled to find a place to live for a short period of time. We do get some migrant workers that work on Flathead Lake every summer, but they behave themselves the same way everyone else does, and deserve to have a place to sleep and get out of the rain. Samaritan House owns the adjacent three lots. We have been encouraged to seek a grant to expand the facility and are working with the Kalispell Community Development Department, and Home Loan Bank Board, a private funding source. We do not accept any government subsidies. It is totally self -funded. The expansion is sought to primarily meet the needs of battered women, unwed mothers, and others who need more privacy than those who can be housed more communally. There are family units, which are not like an institution with bunk beds. There are communal meals provided. Again, I urge you to reject FRDO's findings, and find in favor of the application. 0 Sister June Kenny, Director of Samaritan House, wanted to add to what Bruce said about dormitories being so institutional. At Samaritan House, a dormitory is a fully self-contained apartment with three beds. This is what they want, because, you must understand that one of the greatest problems of being homeless is that they are so very lonesome. So, when they come here, they have two buddies to talk to. The fellowship is beautiful. We don't have dormitories with 60 beds in them. You talk about these being where motels are located, but where do the children play? What we have now is a play lot and a room for children to play. You talk about people walking up and down the sidewalks. We have never had a complaint in six years, from our neighbors about people being in our neighborhood. Several times, I have been told by the people across the alley, how glad they are to have us there. Things are cleaner, quieter, no cars going up and down the alley all night. That is because we have a 10:00 curfew, there is absolutely no drinking as long as they are staying at Samaritan House. I would like to add a letter to your packet, from the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington D.C. I did not know this man was coming. He came up to the door, after learning about a shelter in Kalispell and stayed at the shelter for 2 nights. A copy of his letter was submitted to Board members. Beverly Larson, 1111 8th Ave East, said that she has been involved with the Samaritan House through the North Ridge Lutheran Church. The people who go there are treated with dignity. I have been there many times and seen how families are happy to be there, and the sadness that happens when someone who lives there gets a job, and moves on. Another service that Samaritan House provides is reasonable rent. I know of the very strict rules that Samaritan House works under, and if they aren't abided by, you are out of there. That is why -the neighborhood is glad to have them there. The teenagers and youth in our Church have been very involved with the weekly project of providing meals at the Samaritan House. It is a learning experience, for them, as well as helping their community. Shelters for mentally ill, disabled and elderly people are allowed to be in neighborhoods, and I think that you would see that there are many more calls to the Samaritan House than to these facilities. I urge you to consider the need in our community for this type of facility. Sherri Stevens -Wolf, representing the United Way, which is a grouping of agencies concerned with the basic needs of emergency food and shelter in Flathead County. We definitely support the efforts of Samaritan House. There is a huge, unmet need. You wouldn't believe how many times we call to hear that it is all full. We need temporary shelter, transitional shelter, and low income (\ housing, which our community is trying to address, at large. This is a very well run establishment. Sometimes we get calls from people that say that Sister June kicked them out. Sure enough, we find out that they had been drinking or breaking the rules. It is very strictly run, it is clean and well kept. I also concur on the issue about parking. The majority of the people we refer do not own cars. We are very much in favor of the small apartment units that they pare referring to as college -like dormitories, where there would be 3 people per room. We think that type of transitional living is more respectful of the dignity of each individual, versus a large institutional dormitory. We support the expansion of the Samaritan House and its work in the community. Oystein Boveng, 11 Hilltop, spoke as a friend of Samaritan House. He commented that with the taxpayers sentiment these days, and the unwillingness to build this type of shelter, I think the problems of setting a precedence here isn't necessarily as serious as you think. Certainly nobody is going to build this type of shelter for profit. You have a chance to do something positive for the community, and I would urge you to act in favor. 7 1� There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened to opponents of the proposed text amendments. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Hash noted that technically, Samaritan House does not fall under a clean definition of a boarding house, or a shelter as it is defined in our ordinance. The use has predated the 1992 update of the zoning ordinance. It is definitely a mixed use, including residential with transitional apartments that are rented out for several months. She asked why is the text amendment needed to include "shelters" when you are not strictly defined as a shelter? Bruce Measure answered that they could not find another definition that closely paralleled the use that exists. We want to provide shelter for homeless individuals, but primarily to offer this multi -phase transitional opportunity for one night up to several months. We rent some of the apartments to provide income to sustain the operation. Wilson emphasized that her evaluation is separate from the Samaritan House facility. She knows that it is an exemplary operation, however could not see how it would operate in all the RA districts. J� In looking at their needs, possible options were reviewed and discussed, to work with maximizing their non -conforming use status. Measure pointed out that what is being asked for is a conditional use, not a permitted use, outright. Perhaps what is needed, is a definition of transitional housing facility. I think it would be beneficial to define, since it is such a special use. Staff agreed, and noted the development definitions for a "transitional care home", a "boarding house" or a "boarding home for sheltered care", which she read through again, which may better define their use, however a text amendment to define a "transitional housing facility" and include them in -the Residential Apartment districts would have to go through the public hearing process, and that would put it 90 days hence. They have grant deadlines to meet. Performance standards for transitional housing facilities were discussed. This would be an entirely separate matter than the proposal before us, however would address the concerns pertaining to opening up all the RA districts to allowing transitional housing facilities as a conditionally permitted use. 8 Brenneman commented that we have before us a program that everyone appreciates, every indication is that they are doing a wonderful job, they are in a location where they should be, they have the possibility of expanding, and we aren't sure if things are worded right, so they can do it. The risk is that while we are getting the right wording, they may lose their funding. So, if we recommend this text amendment, what are we risking? There is a fear that someone else is going to come in and do what to us? The likelihood of that happening is slim, but if someone should want to do that, they still have to go through the application process, so the checks are in place. I feel strongly that the greater good of the community is served by granting this as requested, and going with the risks, which I perceive as being very minimal. Measure requested that the term "transitional housing facility" be used rather than "shelter", as it better defines their use and funding requirements. The Board proceeded to make the following findings of fact to support a recommendation to approve the requested text amendment to allow shelters as a conditionally permitted use in the RA zoning districts. 1. Does the requested zone chanffe comply with the Master Plan? In general, the proposed amendment furthers the goals of the Master Plan by providing transitional housing to disadvantaged people within the community. The document does recognize that "Shelter is one of man's basic needs. Providing shelter to adequately house the present and future population of an area is one of the community's greatest concerns." 3. Does the requested zone wive reasonable consideration to the character of the district? A low density multi -family residential district is a district that is intended to provide areas for multi -family dwellings and compatible non-residential uses which would generally result in low traffic volumes and non -intrusive impacts. A shelter functions similarly to a community residential facility or boarding house, and would be compatible with other uses that would be allowed within the district. 5. Willthe requested chanffe promote the health and general welfare? The proposed change would promote the health and welfare of a segment of the community, by providing a public service, filling a need in the community to provide adequate shelter, for those seeking temporary, transitional or low cost housing. 9 10. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? It does appear that the requested zone gives adequate consideration for the particular suitability of the residential apartment district for shelters. Within the residential districts there are currently allowances for community residential facilities which can accommodate many sectors of the community which have special needs such as the disabled, the elderly, youth foster homes, homes for unwed mothers, safe homes and group homes for battered women and halfway houses. This facility would add another dimension within the district to accommodate people with special needs: those who are homeless or in need of transitional housing. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Properly constructed and managed, a shelter facility would be able to conserve the value of buildings. 12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the jurisdiction? The most appropriate use of land results in situations where conflicts between uses are minimized. Minimal conflicts can be �! anticipated with appropriate conditions of approval attached to the construction of a shelter facility. Motion Brenneman moved to adopt the findings of fact in the FRDO report #KZTA-96-2, incorporating the findings made by the Planning Board to recommend to City Council the proposed text amendment be approved as follows: 1. Approve the proposed zoning text amendment to allow shelters as a conditionally permitted use in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment; district; 2. Approve the proposed amendment to the zoning text amendment to change the parking requirements from"one space per two beds" to "one space per five units." Sanders seconded. Discussion Discussion followed on the motion to include the text amendment in the RA-2, High Density Residential Apartment; and RA-3, Residential Apartment/Office districts, for the sake of consistency. They are higher impact zones, and therefore a lower impact use conditionally permitted in a RA-1 zone could reasonably be anticipated in the RA-2 and RA3 districts. 10 Amended Motion Brenneman amended his motion to include the RA-2 and RA-3 districts, as discussed. Sanders seconded the amendment. On a roll call vote Carlson, Johnson, Sanders, Brenneman and Hash voted in favor. The motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Staff was directed to come up with some language to include a subsection of performance standards for shelters, and come up with a definition for transitional housing facility, to discuss under old business, next month. Kalispell Urban A presentation was given on amendments to the Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan Renewal Plan as reviewed in report #KRD-96-2. Staff recommended the Planning Board give a favorable recommendation to the City Council to move forward with the proposed amendments to -the Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan to further the Goals and Objectives to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. Larry Gallagher, outlined the purpose for bringing this document for review, and urged the Planning Board to move it on to the Council, as the public hearing is already scheduled. Because the planning aspects certainly involves money, the program is to preserve and enhance an existing tax base. The City Council is merely pledging the existing increment that is already in place for projects that have been developed. Board Comment Carlson commented that he heard the City's presentation, and it pointed out to me the importance of planning, as someone did 20 years ago to set this up. This is a culmination of many well - thought out projects to be done, over a period of years, and to utilize those tax increments that accrued through the years, to be a savings to the taxpayers. If someone really wants to look at how to save money, go through the proper planning process, as this has done. It is not a big boondoggle. It is a reflection of how to manage money well over a period of time through thoughtful planning. Motion Johnson moved to send a favorable recommendation to City Council to move forward with the proposed amendments to the Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote, all members present voted in favor. The motion carried 5-0. Wilson referred to a memo sent out regarding a two-hour training session for all Planning Board members put together by the Montana Association of Planners (MAP) and Montana Association of Counties (MACo), to be held Thursday, July 11 at 7:00 p.m. at the Justice Center. 11 Summer hours were discussed. The Board members present were polled, and it was agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. for the months of July, August and September. Information material was included in the packet on "How to Write Effective Overlay Zones". ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. PLC (67 6JA—, Therese Fox Hash, President i Eli a .h Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: � ��2� "W � 12