Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUP-00-027500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FAX 303/235-2857 September 25, 2000 Mr. Alex Panic, Jr. Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. 10001 W. 32"d Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: SUP-00-02/10001 W. 32"d Avenue Dear Mr. Panic: The City of Wheat Ridge Congratulations! The renewal of your special use permit to operate the Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. group home for children at 10001 West 32"d Avenue has been approved. After reviewing your operations for the past year as required per Section 26-30(P)(3) through 26- 30(P)(5), staff found no written verifiable complaints. Enclosed is your Special Use Permit valid to September 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 303-235-2846. Sincerely, Kathy eld Senior Secretary /kf Enclosure: Special Use Permit w Q N C J.a O O O 1 N w ~ ca ~ IQIT, p ~MMd ~I ~ z u w 1--i U W r~rl ~ E a r-i O 1.-,/1 N rr..ll N ~I O C Hrr ~ '--I d O W Z U i O C L w 4 4 W N C N Q C N M A~ 4) 3 O O O .-v W 1--I r~ W O ~I v i L U Z O Ql O Q O O Z U' O O O i N Q O W C'n H W ^N W rL 0 0 N Z N N F~ d v N 0 O 0 N lCJ i v c v d O1 N O O O N v d QJ i-~ d CJ I V L .n N air ~LLr' r~ Tti ^W^ L-I z w Ol w H V Q JC U C.r City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Alan White, Director of Planning and Development Darin Morgan, Codes Administrator Jack Hurst, Chief of Police Fred Girk, Police Records FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. SUP-00-02/Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. DATE: September 11, 2000 We have received the annual request for renewal/review of a special use permit for the Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. group home for children at 10001 West 32"d Avenue. In accordance with Section 26-30(P)(3) through 26-30(P)(5), the City files must be reviewed for "written verifiable complaints" concerning the operation of the group home during the past 12 months. Please review your files to verify the receipt of any complaint for the following address: 10001 West 32' Avenue Please forward written findings to me by September 14, 2000, in order to renew the SUP prior to its expiration. Thanks for your help. /kf /~0 Can ~~fS Ct\Kathy\admin wiances\sup0002.wpdC:\Kathy\adminvariances\sup0002.wpd Memo To: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner From: Officer Les Gregor Subject: 10001 West 32 Id Avenue - Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. Date: September 14, 2000 I have researched the calls for service at the above address and found the following: (This data is gathered from our Records Management System which has been operating since November, 1999) 8 Runaway reports 1 Property Damage Accident 1 Assault-3 1 Theft-3 1 Disturbance-3 1 Lost Property 1 Sex Offender Registration If you have any further questions, please contact me at 303-235-2936 or via email at lgregor@ci.wheatridge.co.us. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lt Fred Girk FROM: Lynn McKissack, Records Mgmt Specialist, Police Records DATE: September 14, 2000 RE: Case No. SUP-00-02/Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. Per your request of September 11, 2000 for review of City files for "written verifiable complaints" concerning the operation of the group home at 10001 West 32"d Avenue, the following contacts are on file in police records from August 1999 to date: 99-17454 081999 Property Damage Accident/H&R 99-18318 083199 Assist 99-19972 092199 Assist 99-20652 092999 Runaway 99-21584 101199 Assist/Citizen 99-21610 101199 Mental Health 99-21648 101299 Warrant Assist/Mesa County Sheriff 99-23969 111399 Runaway 99-23970 111399 Runaway 00-2247 020100 Runaway 00-5084 031100 Runaway 00-11218 053100 Assist 00-16649 080700 Runaway 00-16227 080100 Runaway 00-16234 080100 Theft 00-16290 080200 Sexual Assault/Investigation - Det. Palmer 08/99 The City of ADMINISTRATIVE `PROCESS APPLICATION ON"Cat ldc~~rre Department of Planning and Development _1\ ~S 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 * Address 10001 W. 32nd Ave. Phone 303-238-1231 Owner * Address 10001 W. 32nd Ave. Phone 303-238-1231 -,Colorado Coro. * nmr.FCr-FN1T k FAMrrv TNSTI73TE OF COLORADO,_ INC., - Type of action requested (check one or more of,the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Change of zone or zone conditions Site development plan approval Special use permit Conditional use permit Temporary use/building permit Minor subdivision Subdivision 8 Preliminary Final See attached procedural guide for specific requirements. variance/waiver Nonconforming use change Flood plain special exception interpretation of code zone line modification Public Improvement Exception Street vacation Miscellaneous plat Solid waste landfill/ mineral extraction permit © Other Detailed Description of request Renewal of Special Use Permit issued to At9olescent & Family Institute of Colora o, nc. List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Alex Panio, Jr., 10001 W. 32nd Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-238-1231 Owner App. I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on his half. Signature of Applicant Subscribed and sworn to me this 31stday of August 2000 SEAL My commission expires 2 - " DDS Q Raceivad Receipt No. Case No. EXHIBIT A A tradt of land located in the east 430 feet of the south 300 feet of oretherbth st quarter of Principal Meridian, Section being more ~ a t Range 69 p. ieu arly describedlexs follows: Corr..encln3 at the dcutheast corner or the northeast quarter of said Section 23; thence N48 '29'C5"N, a distance or 59.93 feet to the Tree Point or Eeg!nning; thence Sc9'41'C(3..w being parallel to and 40,00 teet north of the south lire r the northeast quarter of said Section 28, a distance of 321,35 feet;othence 1103°27'36"E, a distance of 55.59 feet; thence 58~ 03'42"E, a distance of 9.03 re*.*' thence NCV 56'18"E, a distance of 34.85 feet; thence N84'03'42"W, a distance of 7,35 feet' t distan of 41.92 et. hence NOV 25'03"E, a distance of 40.25 feet; thence N04 '14'36"f a thenr_c 1723 '08'00"fie a,diatarc NCC24.021 fee a dto the eas southerly southeast corner of a,)ract CC land described In Book 2593 at Page 122 CC the Jefferson County P.eccrds under F.aceptlon No. 621300; thence ecntlruirg N23'0a'00"E, along the easterly lire of said tract, a distance of 11.66 feet; thence 57f 45'30"E, a distance or 16.e9 feet; thence N22 '31'00"E, a C!stance CC 36.59 tee' thence N32' 03'30"E a distance of 46.08 feet; thence departing the easterly line of said tract described in Eco;t 2593 at Page 122, M9 41'CO"E, a distance of 63.16 feet; thence 535'50'15"E, a distance or 10.19 feet; thence 547' 55'15", a distance CC 40.70 feet; thence 535.55'15"E, a distance or 35.20 feet; thence S76 35115"E, a distance or 63.00 feet; thence S52' 25'35"e', a distance or 105,27 feet to a point. on the westerly s of-way lire or Kipling Street; thence S00 .08'CO"N, along said westerly right-Or-way line a distance oC 132.71 feet to the True Point of Eeglrning, County CC Jefferson, State or Colorado. i Case No.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App:Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: UP0002 _ _7 Quarter Section Map No.: dolescent & Family Inst. Related Cases: Case History: Fame 10001 W. 32nd Ave.. Review Body: eat Ridge, CO 80033 03 238 1231 APN' ame 7 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: ame Decision-makin Bod : ~ g y 10001 ~ Approval/Denial Date: est 32nd Avenue heat Ridge, Co 80033 Reso/Ordinance No.: 4 I Conditions of Approval: Reckert ctive District: III Date Received: 8/31/2000 NE28 SUP9901 i Renewal of SUP to operate group home for children ~ a dministrative r 3 dministrative Pre-App Date: INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MERKL CORRECTED Ordinance No. 623 Series of 1985 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOME FOR CHILDREN ON LAND LOCATED AT 10001 WEST 32ND AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Upon application by Alex Panic, Jr. for approval of a Special Use Permit, with conditions, to allow a Residential Group Home for Children in a Residential-One Zone District in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case No. SUP-85-1 and pursuant to findings made based on testimony and evidence presented at public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, a' Special Use Permit for a Residential Group Home for Children in a Residential-One Zone District is hereby granted for the following described land: A tract of land located in the east 430 feet of the south 300 feet of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of said Section 28; thence N48 29'05"W, a distance of 59.98 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence S89 41'00"W, being parallel to and 40.00 feet north of the south line of the northeast quarter of said Section 28, a distance of 321.35 feet; thence N03 2713611E, a distance of 55.59 feet; thence S84 03142"E, a distance of 9.08 feet; thence N05 5611811E, a distance of 34.85 feet; thence N84 03'42"W, a distance of 7.35 feet; thence N09 26103"E, a distance of 40.26 feet; thence N04 14136"W, a distance of 41.92 feet; thence N72 29'24"W, a distance of 20.94 feet; thence N23 08100"E, a distance of 4.02 feet to the most southerly southeast corner of a tract of land described in Book 2593 at Page 122 of the Jefferson County Records under Reception No. 621300; thence continuing N23 08100"E, along the easterly line of said tract, a distance of 11.66 feet; thence S72 45'30"E, a distance of 16.09 feet; thence N22 31'00"E, a distance of 36.59 feet; thence N32 03130"E a distance of 46.08 feet; thence departing the easterly line of said tract described in Book 2593 at Page 122, N89 41'00"E, a distance of 63.16 feet; thence S85 50115"E, a distance of 10.19 feet; thence S47 5511511, a distance of 40.70 feet; thence S35 55115"E, a distance of 36.20 feet; thence 576 35115"E, a distance of 63.00 feet; thence S52 25135"E, a distance of 105.20 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Kipling Street; thence 500. 08'00"W, along said westerly right-of-way line a distance of 132.71 feet to the True Point of Beginning, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. Section 2. Conditions. 7 The capacity of the group home to be limited as stated in the application for a maximum of 20 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18. (2) The Special Use Permit be conditioned upon the site plan that has been presented. (3) That this Special Use Permit be issued to Personal Development Adolescent Care unit, to Dr. Alex Panic, Jr., owner, only and if there is a change in use or a change in ownership, the Special Use Permit would terminate. (4) Parents' groups will continue on an off-site location. (5) There will be no exterior signs showing it is a treatment center on the property except for the address. (6) All requirements of the Wheat Ridge Fire District be met. Section . Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of 4Mn /`i i... ..C i.M1.....~ n:a-~ at.-~ e.. • n ORDINANCE NO. 623 PAGE 2 Section 4. Severabilitv. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect June 24, 1985. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 25th day of Februan 1985, ordered publishetl -in full in a newspaper of general circa a ion in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for March 18, 1985, 1985, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 6 to 2 , this 24th day of June , 1985. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 24th day of June , 1985. t%A9. FRANC STITE , MAYOR A~& Wanda Sang, City C erk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY: JO HAYES, CITY ORNEY 1st Publication: February 28, 1985 2nd Publication: July 4, 1985 Wheat Ridge Sentinel Effective Date: June 24, 1985 REPUBLISHED TO CORRECT ERROR IN ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: October 10 , 1985 This Ordinance is published to correct Ordinance No. 623 in accordance with Wheat Ridge Code of Laws,' Appendix A., Sec. 1.,F. Specifically, Section 2. Conditions is being corrected to accurately state all conditions of appr-oval.- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 24, 1985 Page -4- Item 9. Council decision regarding the striping of 44th Avenue. Mr. Ric Minetor was present to explain and answer questions. There was discussion. Motion by Mr. Hobbs that 44th Avenue, Wadsworth to Kipling Street be striped 4 lanes since street has been built to a 44 foot flowline to flowline, the street has also been constructed at the same width from Parfet to Tabor Street, which is 44 foot flowline to flowline, that had been approved by City Council to be striped at 4 lanes, this would create a 3-lane street to exist between Wadsworth Blvd. and Kipling. Mr. Hobbs stated that he felt it needs to be striped 4 lanes; seconded by Mr. Merkl. Mrs. Snow stated that she would be voting No because Council voted to leave it 3 lanes. Mrs. Keller stated that she would also be voting No because the City had restriped the East side. Discussion followed. Mr. Hobbs called for the question; no second; carried 6-2 with Mr. West and Mrs. Keller voting No. Vote on original Motion failed 4-4 with Mr. Merkl, Mr. Davis, Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. Flasco voting yes. Motion by Mrs. Keller to restripe W. 44th Avenue to two west-bound thru-lanes to Yarrow Street and then merge to a one thru-lane continuing west; seconded by Mr. West; carried 6-2 with Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Davis voting No. Item 10. Council decision regarding authorization to initiate condemnation proceedings to obtain the necessary easement across Mr. Bowser's property for the 45th & Everett Drainage Improvement Project DI-104.01-85-5. Mr. Merkl introduced Resolution 944, title read by the Clerk; Motion by Mr. Merkl that John Hayes be authorized to initiate condemnation proceedings to obtain the necessary easement across Mr. Bowser's property for the 45th and Everett Drainage Improvement Project DI-104.01-85-5; seconded by Mr. Hobbs; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Merkl for the adoption of Resolution 944; seconded by Mr. Hobbs; carried 8-0 Item 11. Decision regarding, or enactment of, Council Bill 178 in light of judge's order of June 17, 1985. Motion by Mr. Merkl for the adoption of ordinance 623 as per the Judge's order on June 17, 1985; seconded by Mr. Flasco. Discussion followed. Mr. West stated that he will be voting No because he was right the first time and believes he is right now; he doesn't feel there was anything wrong in voting for his constituants; he thinks when the Judge made his ruling, the window was open and the Judge smelled too much hops from the brewery. Motion carried 6-2 with Mr. West and Mr. Hobbs voting No. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO MARCH 18, 1983 The City Council Meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Kent Davis, Tony Flasco, Larry Merkl, Clyde E. Hobbs, Moe Keller, Nancy Snow, Randy West, and Dan Wilde. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; City Administrator, Tom Palmer; City Attorney, John Hayes; Director of Community Development, Charles Stromberg; Chief of Police, Howard Jaquay; staff; and interested citizens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 11,1985 Motion by Mr. Wilde for the approval of the Minutes of March 11, 1985; seconded by Mr. Flasco; carried 8-0. CITIZENS' RIGHTS TO SPEAK Ted Kush, 4000 Newman, asked when Lena Gulch, Phase III would start; will Maple Grove Reservoir create any problems with Lena Gulch. Mayor Stites replied that Maple Grove would create no problems whatsoever with Lena Gulch construction and that Phase III and IV would start probably in 30 days. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. A) Council Bill 175 - An Ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18-50, Direct Alarms Prohibited, of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge to provide for the allowable use of Direct Alarms for certain specified facilities. B) Resolution 93$ - A Resolution reaffirming the policy of cooperation between the City of Wheat Ridge and the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District in the monitoring by the City of Wheat Ridge of Direct Fire Alarms in those instances, and for those ,facilities, excepted by Council Bill 175. Council Bill 175 was introduced on second reading by Mr. West; title read by the Clerk. Tom Stegbauer, 4125 Yarrow Ct., was sworn in by the Mayor and spoke in support of this Ordinance. Also sworn in by the Mayor was Tom Woodford, 3645 Moore Street, who spoke on behalf of the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District, and gave a brief background on this matter and also asked for approval of Ordinance. Mr. Flasco asked to abstain from voting on this matter because he is on the Wheat Ridge Fire Board; carried 7-0 with Mr. Flasco abstaining. Motion by Mr. West that Council Bill 175 (Ordinance.611) be approved; seconded by Mr. Merkl. Motion by Mrs. Keller to amend that under Section 1. the word "SCH00-Lr-be _added so that the sentence reads: "except for nursing homes, day care centers, hospitals, schools, or treatment centers...." and secondly that we include "State or City. regulation" so that the sentence read "...federal, state or city regulation, law, or ordinance...", seconded by Mr. West, carried 7-0 with Mr. Flasco abstaining. Motion as amended carried 7-0 with Mr. Flasco abstaining. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: March 18, 1985 Page -2- B) Resolution 938 was introduced by Mr. West; title read by.the Clerk. Motion by Mr. West for the adoption of Resolution 938; seconded by Mr. Merkl; carried 7-0 with Mr. Flasco abstaining. Item 2. Council Bill 178 - An ordinance providing for the approval, of a Special Use Permit for a Residential Group Home for Children on land located at 10001 West 32nd Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case No. SUP-85-1) (Alex Panic, Jr.) Council Bill 178 was introduced by Mr. Merkl, title read by the Clerk. City Attorney Hayes introduced applicants' exhibits A and B. He also introduced 3 separate packets from the protestants. Exhibit III (42 petitions in opposition to the proposed SUP; Exhibit I - marked legal protest with 9 signatures; Exhibit II - Notice of Protest. Mr. Hobbs submitted letters he had received, into the record marked as Council Submissions. Mr. Stromberg presented the staff report; entered documents into the record; showed slides and overhead transparencies. Speaking in favor of the application and sworn in by the Mayor were: Maurice Fox, attorney for the applicant; Gary Davis, 10147 N. Freemont Place, father of a teenager who had been treated by applicant; James Holyfield, 1043 St. Paul Street, Denver, Colorado Dept. of Health; Alvin a Mabry, 1839 Mt. Zion Drive, Golden, teacher at the presently lTicensed facility owned by the applicant; William Jarvis, 7563 Sourdough Drive, father of a teenager who was treated by applicant. Mr. Fox entered Exhibit D showing the site as it currently is and pointed out the six foot fence that surrounds the property; the sufficient parking spaces; showed an overhead aerial of the site; pointed out the privacy of the property. Speaking in opposition and sworn in by the Mayor were: Lary Lawler, 12410 W. 31st Ave., attorney for the opposition; Charles Kimball, 10628 W. 31st Place, attorney, representing some property owners in the area; Bill Powers, 14 Hillside Drive, Coy Watson, 10004 W. 30th Ave., Anita Hansen, 10280 W. 33rd Ave., Bernadine Moore, 10024 W. 30th Ave., Ross Westover, 9965 W. 34th Drive, Woody Norman, 37 Hillside Drive, Douglas Schuler, 10370 W. 33rd Ave., Michael Sipes, 2065 Miller Street, Betty Woods, 16 Skyline Drive, Terri Forcade, 32 Skyline Drive, Kirk Forcade, 32 Skyline Drive, Dr. Charles Zarlengo, 50 Hillside Drive, Louise Turner, 11256 W. 38th Avenue. Their concerns included a business in a rem dential neighborhood; property values dropping; concern for their children; close proximity to four schools; quantity of outpatients; drugs in the neighborhood. Mr. Fox spoke in rebuttal and then answered Council's questions and concerns which included: possible selling of drugs to passing high school students; how many occupants would be in residence, will.JeffCo Social Services supervise this facility; will they be allowed to make placements in this facility; the number of teachers; does Blue Cross and Blue Shield pay any percentage of the payments; who makes the determination when the treatment is completed; what kind of social LITY COUNCIL MINUTES: March 18, 1985 Page -3- activity is at the center; what are the school hours; have there been any complaints about children getting out and meeting students from junior high schools and giving them drugs; does Dr. Panio keep a close control on the children. Motion by Mr. Merkl that Case No. SUP-85-1, a request for a Special Use Permit for a Residential Group Home for children on property located at 10001 W. 32nd Avenue, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The proposed facility conforms with all the requirements of the Special Use Permit in the Residential-One Zone District. 2. The request is compatible with adjacent land uses and zoning if used in conformance with the submitted site plan and specifically for those uses the applicant has indicated. With the following conditions: 1. The capacity of the group home to be limited as stated in the application for a maximum of 20 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18. 2. The Special Use Permit be conditined upon the site plan that has been presented. 3. That this Special Use Permit be issued Personal Development Adolescent Care Unit, Dr. to Alex Panic, Jr., owner, only and if there is a change in use or a change in ownership the Special Use Permit would terminate; seconded by Mr. Davis. Mrs. Snow asked that Mr. Merkl add 3. That the proposed Group Home will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Merkl and second accepted. Mrs. Snow continued that under conditions be added: 4. Parents Groups will continue on an off-site location. Mr. Merkl and second accepted that. Mrs. Snow asked to add 5. There will be no exterior signs showing it is a treatment center on the property except for the address. Mr. Merkl and second accepted. Mr. Merkl added at Mr. Hobb's request 6. All requirements of the Wheat Ridge Fire District be met. Second accepted. Mrs. Keller stated she would be voting No because the homeowners in the neighborhood have the right to say what they want or not want in their neighborhood. Mr. West will be voting no because the change will be a blight on the community that a home of this size would invite lawbreakers and could.invite drug traffic and could have an adverse effect on close-by schools; will have an adverse effect on the residential character and quality of life in the neighborhood near the location; has no social or economic value to the community; property owners should be able to rely that expected use categories will be maintained to protect homeowners-that they have a right to have peace of mind, and that their property values be preserved by excluding damaging intrusions for profit; R-1 zoning is the highest residential and most restrictive in the City. It specifies that it is intended for single family use; that this group home is.maintained for substantial profit to the operator; is fundamentally a business use of land and house rather than for normal single family usage; does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilde will be voting no because he is not convinced that Jefferson Social Services will be supervising this activity. If they do, they require at least one placement be made and they also have some control over the cost of the entry; it will encourage special use requests and zoning changes in the immediate area, it could have an adverse effect on property values; and citizens have a right to preserve the values they bought their homes for; the nature of the proposed use is not compatible. Mr. Hobbs will be voting No because there have been 528 signatures against; this could be taken to a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: March 18, 1985 P&_. -4- referendum; the people have made clear their wishes; it would deteriorate the property values; the access in and out of the school. Motion as amended Failed 4-4 with Councilmembers Merkl, Davis, Flasco, and Snow voting yes. Item 3. Council Bill 180 - An Ordinance adopting Standards and Criteria for the review and approval of Holding Tanks within the City of Wheat Ridge, and adopting by reference the "Design Criteria for Wastewater Treatment Works", adopted and published by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Pollution Control Division, the "Criteria used in the review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities" adopted and published by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Pollution Control Division, and the "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works", 1978 Edition (Ten State Standards), adopted and published by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, and providing a penalty for violation thereof. Council Bill 180 was substituted by a Council Bill brought in by City Attorney, John Hayes, titled: An Ordinance amending Section 27, Regulations applicable to all Districts of Appendix A of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge by establishing criteria for issuance of rezoning approvals and building permits in instances where holding tanks are required to be installed and maintained within the City of Wheat Ridge, and providing a penalty for violation thereof. This substitute Council Bill 180 was introduced by Mr. Wilde; title read by the Clerk. Speaking in opposition and sworn in by the Mayor was Connie Rossillon, 6505 W. 31st Avenue, who questioned whether or not holding tanks were "fail safe" and gave various examples of other supposedly "fail safe" instances. Motion by Mr. Wilde for adoption of Council Bill 180 (Ordinance 612 on second reading; seconded by Mr. Flasco; carried 8-0. After discussion Mrs. Snow requested that another vote be taken. Council was repolled on Mr. Wilde's motion -carried 7-1 with Mrs. Snow voting NO. Motion by Mr. Wilde to go past 11:00 p.m. and continue the agenda in its entirety; seconded by Mr. Hobbs; carried 6-2 with Mr. West and Mr. Davis voting No. Item 4. Council Bill 177 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of Rezoning from Residential-One to Residential-One-C on land located South of West 30th Avenue, between Marshall Street and Newland Street, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case No. WZ-84-37) (Daniel Schneider) Council Bill 177 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Wilde; title read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 613 assigned. Mr. Stromberg gave the staff report and showed slides. Daniel Schneider, applicant, was sworn in by the Mayor. DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO l CASE NUMBER 85CV0923, DIVISION 2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER-ADOLESCENT-S;"YA a Colorado corporation; ALEX PANIC, JR.; WILLUT INVESTMENTS, A Colorado Partnership, DONALD LUTTRULL, CAROLINE LUTTRULL, CHRISTOPHER WILSON, JR. and JEAN M. WILS W*CFa IfjKD PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiffs,. JUN I ? MIS VS. of Jefferson DO; 9M901 THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, a Colorado municipality, acting by and through its City Council, the members of which are: Kent 0. Davis, Anthony N. Flasco, Clyde E. Hobbs, Moe Keller, Larry Merkl, Nancy Snow, Randy West, Dan Wilde, and Frank Stites (Mayor), Defendant. TEIS MATTER having come before the Court on the 17th day of June, 1985 following the filing of an action under Rule 106, C.R.C.P.; the Court having reviewed the record of proceedings as prepared by the Municipality, having reviewed the Court's file. and the Briefs filed by legal counsel, and being otherwise fully advised, FINDS as follows: 1. On March 18, 1985 Case Number S.U.P. 85-1 came before the Wheat Ridge City Council, for a public hearing upon a request for a Special Use Permit for a Residential Group Home For Children. 2. Following the public hearing the Wheat Ridge City Council by a vote of four to four, denied the request for the Special Use Permit. 3. Ordinance No. 609 governs the issuance or denial of special use permits for Residential Group Homes For Children. 4. Ordinance No. 609 contains very specific language regarding the criteria upon which issuance or denial of a special use permit must be based. The Ordinance provides: . The City Council, prior to granting such special use permit, shall be required to determine that the proposed group home will not have an adverse effect on the residential character and quality of life in the particular neighborhood of its location. The City Council may not deny a special use permit for a proposed Residential Croup (tome solely on the basis of neighborhood opposition, where no valid- and substantive evidence has besn offered to show that the proposed Residential Group Home would have such an adverse effect. 5. The provisions of Ordinance 609 require the submittal of valid and substantive evidence. 6. The record in this case fails to reflect any valid and substantive evidence upon which the City Council could have rightfully denied the special use permit sought by the applicant. 7. The votes of at least two of the council persons casting negative votes clearly violate the provisions of Section c of Ordinance No. 609.. 8 The action of the City Council in denying the applicant's request for -a special use permit is unsupportable by the record, without foundation, was arbitrary and capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion. --fow Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Wheat Ridge case number S.U.P. 85-1 is remanded to the City Council with directions to forthwith issue the requested Special Use Permit for the operation of a Residential Group Home For Children, which facility shall be located at 10001 West 32nd Avenue, City of. Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado. DONE AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT this ay oi---•%'~ , 1985 nuns pro tuns, June 17, 1985. BY THE COURT: ' str ict Court Judge APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:l ( By: Maurice F. Fox, No. 3246 John E. ,ayes, t:o. 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs City A torney - wheat Ridge 4465 Kipling 3333 South Bannock Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 600 First Interstate Center 424-4443 Englewood, Colorado 80110 I ,-ffi; 06..i I'll- W~ GFP PECRSI?NAIL DEVIEL-W:MIENT CENTER-ADOi.ic:SClii:Nl'S, 1W.". V. [;]:TY ❑IWHF_'ATi~I ntG U. ATTY MAURICE FOX APPEARED FOf 'TH@: PLAINT. :f 1=FS. A'r"iY J01-IN IIAYES APP' ABED FOR 1'1-IE DEFENDANTS. AT'I'Y LARR( L.AWLER , APPE(,IRED. RULE: SC-6 HEA;iLN„ HELD.. TO ISSUE EPECIAL USE I'EF•ai]'T. MR. FOX TO PRIET'ARE 01lDE::'. Flee in the Dlstr(el C%Vil~ s ~ court DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO JCi .Ca n2}/ JUN 17 Case No. 85CV0923, Division 2 01 JP. m rm County CO16 DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF D: File PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER-ADOLESCENTS, INC., a Colorado corporation; ALEX PANIC, JR.; WILLUT INVESTMENTS, a Colorado partnership; DONALD LUTTRELL; CAROLINE LUTTRELL; CHRISTOPHER WILSON, JR. and JEAN M. WILSON; and KRUSE PANIO PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiffs, VS. THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, a Colorado municipality, acting by and through its City Council, the members of which are: Kent 0. Davis, Anthony N. Flasco, Clyde E. Hobbs, Moe Keller, Larry Merkl, Nancy Snow, Randy West, Dan Wilde, and Frank Stites (Mayor), Defendant. ISSUE Did the City Council for the City of Wheat Ridge abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Plaintiffs' application for a special use permit to operate a residential group home for children? STATEMENT OF FACTS Prior to March 18, 1985, Plaintiffs filed with the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado an application for a special use permit for operation of a residential group home for children to be located at 10001 West 32nd Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson,. State of Colorado. Such a use is permitted in R-1 zoned districts of the City upon approval of a special use permit a: by the City Council, which permit may be granted upon the satisfaction of certain criterion and subject to certain .;x{ ?sit, restrictions and limitations. Thus, it is not a use by right. The proposed group home would accommodate up to 20 n4 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18. In essence, the home Nj would be the site of a rehabilitation program for adolescents w- with alcohol or drug abuse problems. The families of such adolescents would pay a substantial fee to enter the program and the child would receive full-time treatment for up to 45 days during which time the parents may visit the child at the home. Also connected with the treatment program are group family sessions held off the premises. r On March 18, 1985, a public hearing was held on Plaintiffs' ~a{ request for said permit. At that time, evidence both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed group home was presented to and :'aV heard by the City Council for the City of wheat Ridge ("City tF Council"). Following the presentation of evidence, the City a; Council failed, by a tie vote, to enact an ordinance granting the requested special use permit and this action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) ensued. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT if there is any competent evidence to support the actions of a zoning authority, such actions must be upheld on C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review. Even if it is only fairly debatable whether such authority acted reasonably or justifiably, a court should not interfere with the decision. 2 AYE The City Council was required by its ordinance No. 609, e^ _ adopted March 4, 1985, to determine whether the proposed group i, home would have an adverse effect on the residential character and quality of life in the neighborhood in which the proposed s'•t L~ group home was to be located. Where the City Council denies a t?: r~ special use permit, the Ordinance requires that substantive evidence be offered to show that the proposed residential group horse would have such an adverse effect. The transcript filed with the Court in this case establishes that substantial evidence was received on both sides of this question, and that the City Council did in fact base its denial on substantive evidence showing that the proposed group home would adversely affect the neighborhood in which it was to be located. The City Council therefore, as a matter of law, properly exercised its discretion in reaching a determination that the special use permit should be denied based upon such evidence. Therefore its denial must be upheld. It is important, perhaps vital, to note clearly at the onset that the proposed group home involved in this case is not a "group home for the developmentally disabled" as defined in C.R.S. 1973, 431-23-303. The group home here sought to be established is subject to regulation by the City under its zoning ordinances free from state regulation. In order to regulate such a use, the City of Wheat Ridge has enacted Ordinance No. 609, discussed more fully supra. Thus, no equal protection issue of whether the Ordinance infringes a fundamental interest or discriminates against a suspect class is presented in this case. 3 Rather, the standard for review is the familiar standard discussed herein. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs allege that the City Council abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying their application for a special use permit for operation of a residential group home for children at the proposed location, and that this Court should overturn the City Council's decision. The standard for review of the decision of an inferior tribunal pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(x)(4) is limited and embodies only the question whether, on the basis of the recora as a wnuler x the ultimate findings of the agency are supported by anv a; competent evidence. Cooper v Civil Service Commission, 43 Colo. iE w t~ rd e App. 258, 604 P.2d 1186 (1979). Unless the Court upon review r finds that the administrative body's decision is unsupported by v s. ~ any competent evidence, the Court cannot set aside its decision s. on the ground that it is arbitrary and capricious. Marker v. ,`Ft~~r City of Colorado Springs, 138 Colo. 485, 336 P.2d 305 (1975); w s~ Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Simmons, 494 P.2d 85 (Colo. 1972). The record in this case unequivocally establishes that the City Council's denial of a special use permit was based upon proper considerations and was supported by competent evidence. The standard to be used by the City Council in determining whether to issue a special use permit for a residential group home for children is contained in Section 1(c) of ordinance No. 609 of the Code of Laws of the. City of Wheat Ridge, adopted by 4 the City Council on March 4, 19P,5 and effective March 6, 1985, which provides in pertinent part as Follows: c it is clear from the above emphasized language of Ordinance i 3 609 that an No affirmative finding that the proposed group home E~ . r= will not have an adverse effect on the residential character and quality of life in the particular neighborhood of its location is t~ it 1 }Y required before the City Council may grant a special use perm ~y thereunder. It reasonably follows that if, after public hearing t fi , t at which evidenc e is received and considered, the City Council .0vur~. cannot make the finding that the proposed group home will not have an adverse effect, the City Council must deny the permit. The only question which this Court should consider is whether valid and substantive evidence was offered in the hearing which supports the denial of the special use permit applied for by 5 ANY SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED PURSUANT TO 'PHIS SECTION SHALL BE LIMITED IN ITS EFFECTIVENESS TO THE APPLICANT THEREFORE, AND SHALL PROVIDE, BY ITS TERMS, FOR TERMINATION UPON CESSATION OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT OR USE OF SAID APPLICANT. THE LIMITATION SPECIFIED IN THIS SUBPART c IS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL AUTHORITY OVER mus ncF. AND USER APPROVED BY ANY SUCH ISSUED SPECIAL Plaintiffs. The City of Wheat Ridge believes that such evidence was presented. "Sustantial evidence" to support a zoning authority's decision has been defined in Rathhoff, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Section 42.07, pp. 42-77, 78, as follows: This does not mean that a mere scintilla of evidence will suffice, nor does it mean that the court is bound to select the testimony of one side, with absolute blindness to that introduced by the other. The record is to be considered as a whole, and it is for the court to determine what constitutes substantial evidence. The court is not to substitute its discretion for that committed to the agency by the Legislature, but is to sustain the agency if it is reasonably supported by substantial evidence before the court. If the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds could not have reached the conclusion that the agency must have reached in order to justify its action, then the order must be set aside. Quoting from Davis v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 362 S.W.2d 894 at 897 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962) (emphasis in original). In this case, the testimony presented to the City Council in opposition to the proposed group home included valid and substantive evidence which would reasonably and justifiably lead a city council to conclude that the proposed group home would adversely affect the character and quality of the neighborhood. Terry Forcade, a resident of the neighborhood of the proposed group home with seven years' experience as a real estate agent, testified as to the likelihood of diminished property values and increased opportunity for other commercial and business enterprises in the area as a result of granting the special use permit. (Transript at 42, lines 10-16). Woody Norman, a resident of the neighborhood and former prosecutor with the Jefferson County district attorney's office, 6 presented substantial testimony as to the risk of heightened crime which would be likely to result from location of the proposed group home in the neighborhood. Such testimony was based upon Mr. Norman's first-hand involvement in actual cases involving persons being treated in group homes similar to the one at issue in this case. Certainly such testimony constitutes valid and substantive evidence. (Transcript at 43, lice 14, through 44, line 6). Michael Sipes, a school teacher, and Betty Woods, both residents of the neighborhood in which the proposed home would be located, testified as to the close proximity of the home to at least four schools, namely Vivian Elementary School, Prospect Valley School, Everitt Junior High School and Wheat Ridge High School and the potentially adverse effect the group home would have on the safety and welfare of the children attending these schools. (Transcript at 46, lines 11-25, 47 lines 1-3, 51 lines 2-14). Testimony was also introduced at the hearing with respect to potential traffic congestion problems. (Transcript at 37, line 25 and 38, line 1) and the adverse effect on the neighborhood of allowing a for-profit enterprise in a residential area. (Transcript at 41, lines 19-25). All of the above statements constitute valid and substantive evidence which might reasonably and justifiably preclude a city council from finding that a neighborhood will. not be adversely affected by the proposed group home. 7 7 Ordinance No. 609 as above quoted, does not state that a denial of a special use permit csnnct be based upon neighborhood opposition. It merely prohibits a denial based on neighborhood opposition where the testimony presented by neighbors does not. contain valid and substantive evidence as to the adverse effect the proposed home will have on the residential character and quality of the neighborhood. The purpose of this ordinance is to preclude denials baed solely upon fear and prejudice, factors the City acknowledges are not legally sufficient to justify denial of this special use permit. The Ordinance does, however, recognize the right of neighboring property owners to object to the proposed use based on those legally recognized factors by which all zoning actions are judged (i.e. conformance to comprehensive plan, traffic impacts, adverse effects on surrounding properties, etc.) The testimony described above was proper and substantive evidence as to the issues of whether the proposed group home would adversely affect the neighborhood, and also as to the criteria important to zoning and planning decisions pursuant to state statute and to the City's comprehensive zoning ordinance. Section 31-23-303 C.R.S. and Ordinance No. 98, Series of 1971 codified (as amended) as Appendix A of the Code of Laws of the city, provide that the following are among the factors which should be considered by the zoning authority: conformance with a comprehensive plan; degree of congestion in the streets; safety from fire, panic, floodwaters and other dangers; promotion of health and general welfare; prevention of overcrowding of land; 8 and avoidance of undue concentration of population. Zoning and planning regulations are to be made with reasonable consideration as to the character of the district and its particular suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of property and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. C.R.S. 431-23-303(1) and Ordinance No. 98. The record in this case reflects that the City Council members who voted against the granting of this special use permit were concerned about access problems and traffic congestion, close proximity to schools, retention of the residential character of the neighborhood, preservation of property values and incompatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood. (Transcript at 91, line 17, through 92, line 17; 92, line 19, through 93, line 20; 93, line 22, through 94, line 11; 94, line 13, through 95, line 9.) The City Council properly considered the testimony presented at the March 18, 1985 hearing as it bore on the criteria found both in Ordinance No. 609, C.R.S. Section 31-23-303(1) and Ordinance No. 98. As was recognized by the Oregon Supreme Court in Anderson v. Peden, 284 Ore. 313, 587 P.2d 59 (1978), while a denial based solely upon general neighborhood objection to the use may be arbitrary, "this does not preclude a (zoning authority) from considering the evidence submitted by the persons most familiar with the neighborhood insofar as it bears upon the objective factors important to the future of the area affected by the proposed use" and upon the issues of maintenance of land values and compatibility with existing uses. Id. at 67-68. 9 0 U Based upon the valid and substantial evidence supporting the City Council's decision discussed herein, it would not be appropriate Est this Court to set aside said decision. Under well-established Colorado law, where the evidence presents a fairly debatable question as to whether the action of the administrative body was unreasonable and arbitrary, the Court must uphold the decision of the elected members of such administrative body ceho possess expertise as to the issue being decided and who are familiar with the interests and objectives of the community. Huneke v. Glaspy, 396 P.2d 453 (Colo. 1964); Notre Co Town of Cherry Hills Village, 504 P.2d 344 (Colo. 1973); Famularo Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, 505 P.2d 958 (Colo. 1973). This case presents at the very least a fairly debatable question as to whether the City Council acted reasonably and justifiably in denying a special use permit to Plaintiffs. As one who was present at the emotion-filled hearing on this matter, substantial evidence was presented on both sides of this question. As stated by the most eloquent of the supporters of the proposed group home, this matter presented "a judgment call for all of (the Council members)." Transcript at 87, line 25. Based upon this conflicting testimony and evidence, the Council members exercised their judgment and their lawful discretion. A court is without power to substitute its zoning philosophy with that of the legislative body charged with implementing the zoning ordinance. Nopro Co. v. Town of Cherry Hills Village, 504 P.2d at 348; Huneke v. Clasby, 396 P.2d at 10 456; Baum V. City and County of Denver, 396 P.2d at 697, quoting from Robinson v. City of Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich. 425, 86 N.W. 2d 166, 172 (1957). For this reason, the Court must, as a matter of law, defer to the discretion of the elected members of the administrative body charged with making the decision. CONCLUSION The City Council unquestionably complied with both the language of Ordinance No. 609 and with the standard of review under Rule 106(a)(4) which requires that the decision of an administrative body be upheld where there is any competent evidence to support it. It simply cannot be said that the City Council's decision was unsupported by any competent evidence so as to mandate a reversal by this Court. Moreover, it is at least fairly debatable that the City Council acted reasonably and not arbitrarily in denying a special use permit to Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the Wheat Ridge City Council's decision to deny a special use permit to Plaintiffs should be upheld and this action against the City of Wheat Ridge and its City Council members dismissed. MCMARTIN, BURKE, LOSER. & FIT/Z~G'ERALDL P C By ( . John E. Hayes, #5//23Jp1ia F. Crowe, 4X4045 Attorneys for Defendant 600 First Interstate Center 3333 South Bannock Street Englewood, CO 80110 761-1481 11