Loading...
10-13-94 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The regular 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 Therese Hash. Board members present were DeGrosky, Sanders, Bahr, Kennedy and Hash, constituting a quorum. Members with excused absences were Hodgeboom, Carlson, Fraser and Lopp. John Parsons, Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 27 persons in attendance. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the September 13, 1994 meeting were approved as MINUTES written on a motion by Kennedy, second by Bahr. All members present voted aye. TEXT Hash introduced a request by the City of Kalispell to amend the AMENDMENT/ Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text, Sign Regulations, Section SIGNS IN 27.24.100(2) to include the following text, "Non-residential uses in H-1 ZONE the H-1 Zone are permitted one such sign per street frontage and a single sign on the front of the building". The purpose of the amendment is to allow equity in signage and serve to promote safe pedestrian and traffic circulation for those non-residential uses that front on multiple streets. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KZTA94-06. This is a request by the City of Kalispell to modify the sign regulations that apply to the H-1 zoning district. It is staffs' view that the present signage allowances are inadequate for the H-1 destination type commercial uses and recommended the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.24, Signs, be amended. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the requested text amendment. The public hearing was closed. Discussion Hash asked if this amendment was to accomodate the new large medical complexes with two street frontages. In light of all the sign problems the community has had in the past, what is to prevent this kind of signage request being extended to other business areas. Parsons replied it would require a public hearing. The way the regulations are written now, each facility in the H-1 zone can only have a maximum of 24 square feet, either a freestanding or wall sign, but not both. This amendment would allow those non-residential uses a sign for each street frontage, as well as an additional sign on the front of the building in the H-1 zone. Kennedy pointed out that the business zones have a different sign code and are allowed more square footage, which �) would deter such requests. The problem is going to occur with both Highway 93 and Meridian being well traveled roads, on either side of these buildings, the need to have signs on each street frontage will be apparent. She agreed we need to remain committed to the considerable amount of time and effort involved 1 with establishing the sign regulations. Hash had considerable concern about this amendment setting a precedent for other requests. DeGrosky questioned why the City was involved with this proposal? Parsons replied he had brought it to the City's attention at the time the H-1 zone was established in the area that the signage was inadequate. DeGrosky shared Hash's concerns and was reluctant to chip away at the sign regulations. Motion Kennedy moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to amend Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 27.24, Signs as stated in FRDO staff report #KZTA-94-06. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Bahr and Kennedy voted aye. DeGrosky and Hash voted nay. The motion carried on'a 3-2 vote. WESTERN Next, Hash introduced a request by Western Montana Mental Health MONTANA Center headquartered in Missoula, Montana for a conditional use MENTAL HEALTH permit to operate a Youth Group Home to house a maximum of eight CENTER / youths within a single family residence at 909 5th Ave East, in CONDITIONAL Kalispell, more particularly described as Lot 11, Block 207, Kalispell USE PERMIT Townsite in the SW4 of Section 17 T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. The property is zoned R-39 Single Family Residential. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KCU-94-18, and reviewed the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. State law MCA 76-2-402(2) indicates that "the Board shall have no power to deny the proposed use but shall act only to allow a public forum for comment on the proposed use." Based on staff evaluation, six (6) conditions of approval are recommended for granting the conditional use permit. Questions Board clarified what the statute dictates, and asked why a. public hearing was held if the conditional use permit cannot be denied? Parsons responded that the public hearing is valuable to gain neighborhood concerns and the conditions of approval can reflect those concerns. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal and the conditions of approval. In Favor Ruth Large, 845 5th Avenue East, was in favor of the proposal. Jo Tower, 904 7th Avenue East, had no objection, provided that the conditions are met. Elaine Peterson, representative for the Mental Health Center, explained that the group home is intended to serve emotionally disturbed girls. It is not going to be a home for delinquents or drug and alcohol rehabilitation. That is not what her organization does. They are a Mental Health Center. There will be 24 hour supervision with trained staff. The Mental Health Center is only a few doors away with back-up staff. The girls will be 13-18 years old, from the community. They will go to the public schools, use public resources, and will be accountable to the staff at all times. They want to be good neighbors, and she will answer any questions. 2 Mary Thamer, works at the Mental Health Center, as well as living in the neighborhood. She has a daughter that attends Hedges School. She supports this proposal, as there is a need for this type of facility in the community. It will enable us to keep our children in the community, to be near their family and friends, and keep from sending them out, as has happened in the past. There being no further proponents, the hearing was opened to those in opposition to the proposal. Opposition Marsha Shepard, 918 Gth Avenue East, approximately a block away from the group home, and has lived there 20 years. She feels that a group home will lower their property values. She had concerns about the parking, as the garage is right on the alley. There is a garage directly across the alley, a garage and a house next to that. The house has a gas meter on the corner. It is nearly impossible to get in and out of the tight parking back there. Even experienced drivers cannot back out into the alley in one motion. The car has to go forward and backward several times. The people who own the house have put up a large pipe to protect the gas meter. She submitted photos to illustrate. She does not believe 3 vehicles will fit back there. The alley is tricky in the winter with snow piled up. She had a concern that with having 10 people living in the house, they will require food and clothing, therefore she assumed there would be vendors to serve the property, and she is opposed to vendor traffic on . the residential streets. There is no parking available on the streets during school hours. With eight residents of the group home, she anticipated increased traffic from eight families, their friends, and professionals visiting the residents. Further concerns were about the safety of her children. Where are these people going to recreate? Are they under lock and key? Are they going to able to walk around the neighborhood? Will they be confined to the backyard? She also had concern about the fire escape built on a five foot setback. She didn't measure it, but assumes it is approximately 3-3 1/2 feet wide, and with a 5 foot setback, that leaves almost 18 inches from the existing fence, which doesn't allow much space to fight fire. What about security for the neighbors? Treena Ambrose, 928 5th Avenue East, lives almost directly across from the proposed group home, and has lived there for nine years. She is the single parent of a first grader, is involved with CARE, and works with the high school kids, so she is very well aware of the problems of the teenagers in our community. She has a great concern and love for them, and recognizes the need for homes like this to care for our kids. But, she has great concern about placing such a home in close proximity to a gradeschool. She feels it is detrimental to the kids walking to school and playing on the playground, during and after school hours. She wants to live in an area where she does not have to police her children or keep them in the backyard all the time. She is also on the PTA Advisory Board at Hedges School, and a lot of parents have concerns, as well. The prior residents had foster children. She wholeheartedly supported foster families, but there is an awful lot of activity going on. Those kids seemed to run I the gamut of ages. She had concerns about what these kids will be doing 24 hours a day. Are they going to be confined after school or after working? Are they going to be allowed to play in the front lawn when our kids are walking back and forth from school? Are they going to be able to know what is going on in the playground right across from the home? Are they going to have "open sesame" to the playground? Parking is a major problem, and is especially chaotic when parents are dropping off or picking up kids from school. She walks her son to school each day because of her concern with the traffic. The bottom line for her is that if this group home does go through, she is going to be really adamant about making sure it is written very definitely, very succinctly, very clearly for all of us, that from the. conditions we are hearing, that these are going to be girls from 13 to 18 years old, there will be 24 hours supervision. Under some of the conditions heard tonight, she doesn't want to find out six months down the line that these conditions are going to change and there will be kids with substance abuse, or sexual deviants. It concerns her very much. This is a residential area with a lot of kids. Neil Deering, 9th Street, agreed with the previous two speakers, and added that Hedges is preparing to go through a major rebuilding program to remodel the school. The main entrance to the school is now going to be right next to the group home, �\ diagonally across the intersection, so there will be even more traffic. It is one lane going down the street, now, and is very dangerous, as 5th Avenue East is closed off, so that emergency vehicles can't go through. To add eight teenagers who will have families and friends visiting, who will have cars, it just increases the dangerous situation. It will only get worse with Hedges' remodelling. Chairman Hash noted for the audience that the only vehicles involved with the group home would be for staff. The residents would not have vehicles. Lane Bennett, 815 7th Avenue East, has three daughters who attend Hedges School. He is not an opponent to the group home as it has been described, however has concerns similar to Mrs. Shepard and Ms. Ambrose, particularly about vendors and commercial type deliveries. He felt there was a lack of information about how the facility is going to be run. Will there be a set of rules that this Commission or City Council can impose in their conditions? Will there be a curfew? Will there be no smoking, or a set of house rules that will be followed? Can it be adopted as part of the conditional use permit? As parents and neighbors this type of information is lacking. He feels that everyone recognizes the need for this type of facility. He works in a field where he runs across kids all the time that need good foster care, and we need to provide that. The traffic is a problem on 5th Avenue. School deliveries are extremely well coordinated. He questioned the access to the facilities of Hedges by these kids. ' He doesn't think they would use the playground, which isn't really a concern, but it leads to his next concern, which is we need to know that as part of the conditions, they can't change the scope 4 F and focus in direction of this group home. He didn't want to sound chauvinistic, but he has 4 little girls and if it were boys in the group home, he would really be having a problem with this. Ed Corrigan, lives at 528 1st Avenue East, and his second grader goes to Hedges School. He is not really opposed to the group home, but has concerns about what kind of controls we as a community can put on the use it is put to. Emotionally disturbed covers a wide range. It could be people who are clinically depressed, people who are violent, or people who have been sexually assaulted. The Western Montana Mental Health Center is very conscientous and very sincere in their efforts, but he knows that they have some problems. There is a group home on the east side that has had no problems, at all. There is a home on the west side, granted it is an adult group home with different kinds of disabilities, but the clients have been violent beyond the s taff's control. They are violent towards each other, they have sexually assaulted each other, and that's not a situation to have across the street from the .playground and a school that has kindergartners to sixth graders. Does the law allow us to put conditions on the type of emotional disability that this group home is going to deal with, and if so, how is it going to be enforced, since we have no . access to what kind of problems these kids are suffering from because of their right to privacy. Do we have rights to impose conditions in terms of staff? I know for a fact, again, that certain facilities that the Health Center runs, their staff are not capable of dealing with the clients that they have, as at times the clients are beyond their control. So, do we have the right to say that if we have this group of emotionally disturbed youth, can we require instead of 2 people, 4 people? He believes that Western Montana Health Center is undergoing reorganization both financially and structurally. How is that going to affect the operation of this group home? I don't know if any of us are against these kids having the opportunity to get the help they need, but by the same token, whoever chose this house, had to understand that there were children across the street in the playground. It is across the street from a school. And there is going to be some reactions to that. Anticipate those reactions. What kind of give and take 'are we going to have to deal with these concerns if the law won't allow us to oppose except as conditions, and if those conditions are not lived up to, what recourse do we have? Doug Graham, 739 Greenridge Drive, has two daughters who attend Hedges Elementary School, and again, he stated there is a school there folks. The potential for conflict and complication is higher amongst this group. It not only would have impacts on the kids, but on the group home as well. It would be negative to them. They don't want to have any bad publicity. Kids growing up need that kind of a group home, but they don't need it next -to a school yard. Marsha Shepard, pointed out that with ten people living there, they will need another trash can, and there isn't any room for one in the alley. 5 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion Kennedy asked staff to read the statute, and asked if conditions can restrict the type of clientele in the group home. Parsons replied that MCA 76-24-411(2) is the definition of a community residential facilities of which there are four. The applicant chose the second type of facility, thus excludes the following: a community group home for developmentally, mentally, or severely disabled persons which does not provide skilled or intermediate nursing care; a halfway house operated in accordance with regulations of the department of health and environmental sciences for the rehabilitation of alcoholics or drug dependent persons; or a licensed adult foster family care home. However, that does not preclude the applicant from coming back through the public hearing process to change to any one of those four community residential facilities. State law requires that any one of them has to be approved. A youth foster home or youth group home is defined in 41-3-1102. The definition includes the ages of 13-18 years old of boys or girls that have been physically, mentally or emotionally abused at home, and have been removed from that environment either voluntarily or by court order, and placed in a group foster home such as this. Kennedy asked if a condition could be put on the permit that stated only girls in the group home. Parsons said the Board can put any conditions on, but they may get taken out, and would be a question more properly answered by legal counsel for the City. Ms. Peterson was asked to address the concerns expressed. She said the intention is to provide a community service to the youth of our community so they don't have to be sent away. Some of the concerns that have come are easily taken care of. They have no intention of using vendors. It will be run as a home. There will not be live-in staff, it will be shift staff, so they will always be awake and alert. There will be a minimum of a bachelor's level position manager, who will be responsible for the home, and will address any concerns the neighbors have. There will be a half- time therapist involved in the program, assigned just to that home. That therapist will provide individual therapy, group therapy, family therapy if the family is able and willing to be involved in the therapy of the child. There will be a very strong training component to the home to teach coping skills, behavior management skills, youth employment training programs, and will utilize community resources for recreation. The goal is to teach them to be responsible citizens. It will be a structured program with rules. The girls must gain trust and become part of the program. As they improve on their personal goals and their skill development they will gain more and more privileges. All the staff are required to have a minimum of 15 hours training initially, they will have in -staff training, with in -staff trainers and trainers in the community. There will also be crisis intervention staff that \ f will always be on call for back up if an emotional problem needs to be addressed immediately. The standards are dictated by the Department of Family Services. Mental Health has a contract with the Dept. of Family Services to provide this service. They have 6 to meet their licensing requirements. The fire escape was built with a building permit in collaboration with the City Building Inspector and the Fire Marshall. All public health standards have to be met. If the girls do not want to be there, then they won't last, because it is not a lock down facility, we are not going to close them up in the basement and say you have to be here. If it doesn't work out, then the family services caseworkers are told things are not working for this youth and they need a different service. She is not going say there won't be any problems. There will be problems. But, the staff will be well trained and have back up. Parking requirements anticipate one car in the garage and two parked in back, maximum. The Mental Health Center is not too far away, and extra parking, if needed, can be over there. Meetings and large gatherings will be held at the conference room at the Mental Health Center, not at the group home. They have talked to the school. If there are problems that arise with the children, let us know and we will address those problems. She doesn't anticipate that the residents will be too interested in associating with elementary age children on the playground. They will be in school. If they can't be in the public school, then they aren't right for a community program. There are no other resources like this in the community. Questions Sanders asked how the girls will be transported to these activities during -the day? Ms. Peterson replied that there will be staff cars or they can walk. They would be transported just like you would your family. DeGrosky sensed there was a perception that we are dealing with people who are criminals. Is there anyone going to be in this home who have committed a crime that is going to present a danger to the other children in the neighborhood? That seems to be the biggest concern of the neighbors. Ms. Peterson explained that a person who has committed a crime is not their target population. This is not a probation or alternative to detention. But, again, she is not going to tell you that girls with emotional problems don't have behavior problems, but if those problems aren't under control, then they don't belong in this facility. Out of all the referrals and requests she has received, none of them have committed crimes. If a girl has proven herself trustworthy, she will have earned privileges. Staff will check up on each girl, and those privileges can be taken away. Hash referred to the traffic concerns, and asked if the girls' families would be visiting? Elaine didn't anticipate any additional traffic than what is normal for a residential area. Not all eight families will be there at the same time. It is not a treatment center, it is a therapeutic home. DeGrosky commented that since the conditional use permit cannot i" be denied, he proceeded to address the neighbors concerns, such as requiring that the gas meter be shielded, the parking situation and trash facilities are inadequate. It was noted that these concerns will be addressed by the Site Plan Review Committee. He would like to require that there be no commercial vendors or loading. 7 Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #KCU-94-18 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council with the 6 conditions as indicated, and that the neighborhood concerns be detailed for City Council and included with the recommendation. Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Sanders, Kennedy, and Hash voted aye. DeGrosky voted nay. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote. DeGrosky clarified his vote by saying that he does not oppose the group home in any way, as there are other groups homes in theneighborhood, both youth and adult homes, and there have been no problems. However, he is not satified with the conditions of approval. MEADOW PARK II/ Hash introduced the next agenda item, which was a request by PRELIMINARY American Land and Development, Inc. for preliminary plat approval PLAT of a 21 lot residential subdivision on 10.23 acres of land known as Meadow Park II, situated immediately sotuh of South Woodland Drive and Mallard Drive approximately 400 feet south of Kelly Road and 400 feet west of Willow Glen. The property is more specifically described as tracts 7OGA, 7OH, 5CBA, and 5CHB on the E2 of Section 20, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. The subdivision lies in an R-5 (Single Family/Duplex) Zone, outside of the City Limits of Kalispell, but will be served by City sewer and water. Staff Report Parsons presented a detailed overview of report #FPP-94-23, noting an additional condition to provide for a payment of $10,555 for cash in lieu of parkland. Based on review of the statutory criteria for a major subdivision, staff recommended approval subject to 21 conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the project. In Favor Bob Stouffer, with Billmayer Engineering, spoke as a representative of the applicant, in favor of the development. They were in general agreement with the conditions of approval, except for #9 and #10 pertaining to rights -of -way for curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Drainage swales are proposed to be consistent with adjacent developments, and are a preferred method of handling stormwater drainage. They objected to putting sidewalks on both sides of -the development that do not connect anywhere. They concede to put sidewalks on one side to serve the subdivision. He commented that he was not aware of the City's requirement to plant street trees in the boulevard, and requested that it be deleted. David Ward, American Land & Development, said that it has been an education this past year in developing the first phase of Meadow Park. They encountered a lot of problems. It was probably the dustiest year they have ever had, and it was a hassle from day one, with many delays with subcontractors, �l including paving of the road. He thanked the homeowners who i purchased during that period because it was a dirty, messy process. Out of 15 lots, 11 have been built on, and all but one has been purchased to be built on. Everything should be completed soon. On Meadow Park II, it is their intention to complete all of the project prior to the sale of lots, including the paving, to mitigate the impacts to the homeowners. Verlin Cobey, a builder for over 20 years, commented that this valley needs more quality built homes. He realized there are legimitate concerns and feels that if all the conditions are met he is in favor of -the subdivision. There being no further proponents, the public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Trina Stivers, 107 Mallard Drive, which is located directly across from the proposed road. She informed the Board that she was only one in the neighborhood who received a registered letter. She submitted two letters into the record of her many concerns. She emphasized the safety problems with speeding traffic on the narrow roads in a development with a lot of children. She was in favor of sidewalks on both sides of the street, and trees in the boulevards, as well as street lights. She wanted to point out that the homeowners had a terrible year with these developers. She took pictures of them burying large amounts of construction garbage, which were available if required. Pat Stivers, 107 Mallard Drive, agrees with his wife's testimony and is opposed to the subdivision. Jerry Hutchins, 1989 South Woodland, is opposed, because he has never had such a year with neighbors. These developers are neighbors as they are directly across the street from his home. The only obligation they had to him was to finish Woodland Drive. When I bought the lot, that was their obligation. They burned the garbage, buried it, and dust was terrible on the road. They had to go to the authorities to get the developers to oil it. Never did oil Mallard Drive. They haven't been good neighbors to us. When you pick up their garbage every day out of your yard, you get tired of it. What he wants to know about this addition, is where Woodland meets Kelly Road, last year there was standing water on it. There is no drainage. H wanted them to finish what they started before they get permission to go ahead with another project. Mrs. Jerry Hutchins, opposed this project and hoped that they would finish their part of the subdivision before they start another. They are tired of all the dust. Natalie Robinson, 105 Mallard Drive, is opposed to the subdivision and submitted written testimony of numerous concerns, focusing on the developers' misrepresentation to them regarding the "quiet neighborhood and waterfront home" which was the determining factor when they bought their home. Other concerns were the impacts from increased traffic and crowding of the schools. Marlyn Robinson, 105 Mallard Drive, subdivision. was opposed to the G \ / Trina Stivers, asked that the cash in lieu of parkland be given to the Greenacres West park, so that their children can benefit from it. She wanted to point out that the developers have disturbed the site by taking all the grass off of it, piled debris to burn and it is a mess. Also, the developers were selling the lots before the plat was approved on a contingency basis, and she wants to make sure that the conditions are met. Jerry Hutchins, regarding the intersection at Woodland Drive and Kelly Road, they tore up the asphalt to put in the waterline and that has never been fixed. The Greenacres Homeowners Association has been very hostile. Bernie Clark, 2037 S. Woodland, is opposed to the subdivision. The previous speakers have pretty much covered everything that needs to be said about this project. He said that if he were to say anymore, he would probably get upset and say things that shouldn't be said. Warren Petry, 2061 S. Woodland Drive, is also opposed to this project, because of the broken promises and lies that led to assumptions of situations which were not met. He believes that the mistakes that were made before will continue with this new development, and the neighbors will go through another year of _1 hell with the dust and construction. Shawn Dillon, 106 Mallard Drive, also bought his home under the assumption that it would be a quiet neighborhood. He has two small children and they chose that subdivision for that reason. It is his understanding that he has no legal recourse to obligate the developers stick to their word. He feels angry that this was misrepresented to him. He did not receive a notice of this, even though he lives two blocks away. His main concern is it is obvious that the impact to Mallard Drive is completely underestimated. From the number and size of the lots, the proximity of Hwy 93, it is obvious that most of those cars are going to use Mallard Drive -to get to Kelly Road and the Highway. That road is very narrow, the driveways are notbig, cars park on the street, and he is concerned about kids' safety. He didn't see any kind of speed control in the plan for Mallard Drive. No STOP signs, no crosswalks, no speed bumps. He is also opposed to the access across the slough. He feels there is a need for this type of housing in the community, but he is not willing to sacrifice so much to accomodate the development as proposed. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the meeting opened to Board deliberation. Discussion The Board agreed with the assessment of traffic flow going directly onto Mallard Drive, and discussed the option of building a cul-de-sac. It was determined that completion of the requirements of Meadow Park I must be met prior to final plat approval. After lengthy discussion on City subdivision standards for streets the Board agreed by concensus to add a provision to condition #9 Rat ~? to state that "...street lights be installed throuffhout the subdivision..." and it be a "...minimum of 32 feet back of curb to back of curb, as approved, by the City Public Works Department." The Board went on to deliberate on the proposed road and bridge over the slough, extending South Woodland Drive into Mallard Drive, which is not a collector street. Parsons suggested adding a condition that would not permit any lot to convert to a road, that is, a non -vehicular access easement to be recorded with the final plat so that no access can be provided to the west or the south perimeter of the subdivision. The Board addressed the developer's concerns with meeting the City street standards for curb, gutter and sidewalks, and street trees. It was agreed to leave the conditions as is. Condition #21 was added: "That cash -in -lieu of parkland be paid in the amount of $10,555 based on the market value of $95,000." Installing a stop sign at the intersection in question, was debated. The Board agreed by concensus to add condition #22: "That a STOP sion be installed at the intersection of the new road and Mallard Drive in accordance with the Flathead County Road Department." Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #FPP-94-23 as findings of fact, and recommend to the County Commissioners that preliminary plat for Meadow Park II be granted subject to 23 conditions as amended. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote Kennedy, Bahr, Sanders, and Hash voted aye. DeGrosky voted nay. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote. OLD BUSINESS The November meeting has been scheduled for the 16th due to the conflict with election day on November 8th. Kennedy, DeGrosky and Bahr will not be in attendance. NEW BUSINESS Board members whose terms expire in December were encouraged to submit letters to the FRDO office if interested in reappointment. Board members whose term expires are Michael Fraser, Milt Carlson, Therese Hash, Walter Bahr andkE?2��vM . The October 1995 meeting was scheduled for the th in order to book a meeting room in advance. ADJOURNMENT There being -no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. e-x\ L? Therese Fox Hash, President APPROVED: G� c6gnizQ //// � /C7� i?�rh Ontko, Recording Secretary d i 11