Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1998CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 15, 1998 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Commissioner THOMPSON at 7:30 p.m. on January 15, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Janice Thompson Ann Brinkman Harry Williams Tom Shockley Nancy Snow Jay Rasplicka Dean Gokey Staff Present: Alan White, Director, Planning & Dev. Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Barb Fuller, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of January 15, 1998. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Motion by Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner SNOW to approve the agenda with an amendment by Commissioner BRINKMAN to add an item under New Business. Motion carried 7-0. 5. Minutes Unavailable For Approval 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. SUP-98-1: An application by Greg Stieger for approval of a special use permit allowing non-residential counseling and treatment in a Restricted- Commercial zoned district located at 4243 Harlan Street. Planning Commission Page 1 01/15/98 Meredith Reckert presented an overview of the case. Described the building in question and gave an overview of the general vicinity in which the business is located. The overview also included slide pictures and aerial slides of the business and its available parking. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance, Case File, Packet Materials and Exhibits. (Accepted by Commissioner THOMPSON.) The property is located within the City of Wheat Ridge, all proper posting and notification requirements were met and therefore the Commission does have jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Reckert continued her presentation with definitions of a special use permit, an overview of the previous use of the building in question, and descriptions of the parking and landscaping. Earlier in 1997, building permits were issued to the applicant for remodeling. There were two neighborhood meetings held with regard to the pending special use. Ms. Reckert reviewed the Evaluation Criteria for a special use permit. Most criteria were met. There was concern regarding parking and staff has recommended that the applicant pursue overflow parking at a nearby office building. After further scaling of the available parking lot at the facility in question, there is plus or minus 14 spaces, with 14 being required. Ms. Reckert reviewed all agency referrals and also included information from the Wheat Ridge Police Department. The Police Department reviewed the number of complaints and number/types of calls for the property since the applicant began occupying the building (August 1997). The report included that there had been nothing remarkable to indicate that this type of treatment facility has had an adverse affect on the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Reckert concluded that this special use permit would fill a void in services and provide a public benefit. The criteria used to evaluate a special use permit support the request, a recommendation of Approval was given with a number of conditions. Commissioner SNOW questioned the parking situation, inquiring about how the required parking figure is determined and how 14 spaces were scaled into the areas. Ms. Reckert responded and stated that the rental units in the building would bring the parking space requirement up to 17 (3 for the rental units). Commissioner BRINKMAN questioned how the private security condition would be monitored by the City. Commissioner GOKEY questioned whether there is overflow parking available in the adjacent lot according to a slide shown (that pictured a full lot). Ms. Reckert responded that Code Enforcement would have to be involved in monitoring the building for security. She also responded to Commissioner GOKEY and pointed out that the majority of the counseling sessions were held at night when other businesses are closed. Commissioner BRINI{MAN questioned the sign and its content. And noted that in the packet it stated that the sign was removed, she noted that there is a large free standing sign in front of the facility. Planning Commission Page 01/15/98 Ms. Reckert responded that the sign content was modified due to neighborhood response. She also noted that the sign and its location were existing when the business was a dentist office and so it meets the code requirements. The attorney for the applicant was sworn in by Commissioner THOMPSON, Evan Lipstein of 12600 West Colfax, Lakewood. Mr. Lipstein began with a couple of formal matters. He pointed out the conflict in the zoning ordinance where "counseling services" are listed as both a "use by right" and a "special use permit". He was informed that night of the procedure available through the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for an interpretation of the ordinance and he noted that he would have rather gone to the BOA first, but that the Planning Commission application had already been filed, therefore they would continue with the special use permit. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for clarification of the rules and procedures for the applicant. Alan White responded that the code does not prohibit the applicant from seeking the interpretation from BOA if turned down by the Commission or the City Council. Discussion continued between Commission members and Staff, regarding the interpretation of the zoning code, and whether it is a "use by right" or a "special use permit". Commissioner THOMPSON questioned Alan White about whether the Commission needed to take a vote about whether to hear the case or send it on to the BOA, or if staff makes the decision. Alan White responded that the applicant is responsible for pursuing an appeal to the decision by the zoning administrator. It is up to the applicant whether this case is continued pending interpretation by the BOA or the Planning Commission could table the item. Commissioner THOMPSON addressed Mr. Lipstein and explained that the Commission wants to ensure that the applicant has proper appeal opportunity. Discussion continued regarding the interpretation of the zoning code and the possibilities available to the applicant. Staff pointed out the possibility of hearing public comment especially with the number of people present to speak, and if the applicant after that wanted to request a continuance pending the BOA in February the City would not pursue any code action due to the fact that the application is in process. Mr. Lipstein commented on the options for his client, whether that is district court, BOA or an approval from Planning Commission and City Council. He asked the Commission for a 5 minute recess to speak with his client about the direction they want to go. A 10-minute recess was granted Planning Commission Page 3 01/15/98 Mr. Lipstein stated that his client wished to proceed with the hearing. He then continued to present an overview of the case including the procedures followed by Greg Stieger to comply with all of the City's requirements. Lipstein noted that the heaviest use of the parking is in the evening. The office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., however, most therapy sessions are in the evening. The point was presented that most of the clientele do not drive. There are 10-minute periods of transition time when one session is ending and another is starting that provides for the heaviest traffic times. The center feels that it is appropriate for one or more members of the staff of the clinic to be present to monitor and encourage the clients to leave. Lipstein mentioned that his client does not feel that it is necessary to provide patrolling by private security. The issue of the sign was addressed when neighbors became offended by the name on the sign. This however presented a problem for clients locating the clinic. The clinic replaced the sign with just the initials of the name and a stick figure drawing used as their logo. Mr. Stieger did check with the City about sign regulations and did receive an informal approval, however, if there is a problem with the size, Mr. Stieger will comply. Lipstein asked for consideration for approval from the Commission and pointed out the need that it provides in this area of town. Commissioner SNOW asked for clarification of the stand that the applicant is taking on the need for security. Lipstein responded that it is important to monitor the transition time between therapy sessions with an onsite employee but that his client wishes to avoid the armed, uniformed security guard approach if possible. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the applicant has approached anyone about using the parking lot. Lipstein responded that they were unsure if it was appropriate to try to approach someone about the use of the lot before the special use is decided on. Commissioner THOMPSON asked staff what is required at City Council if the condition is made that overflow parking be provided? Staff responded that the parking agreement should be in writing Greg Stieger of 4243 Harlan Street was sworn in. Stieger began by passing out copies of his business brochure. He also presented his background including his degrees, his experience and special licenses that he holds. He explained that the program is heavily involved in community resources (task forces/legislative reviews). He explained the involvement with Jefferson County Schools and the training that his group provides to staff of the school district. His program is heavily involved in the community. He stated that the number one priority in working with violent offenders is victim and community safety. He pointed out that his agency provides a way to monitor violent offenders and thus help to keep victims and the general public safe. Mr. Stieger presented a map, showing the lack of area resources for the type of therapy that his program provides. He also noted, that at this time, his program and facility is the only state certified domestic violence program in the City of Wheat Ridge. Planning Commission Page 4 01/15/98 Commissioner THOMPSON asked if any of the clinics on the map are in residential areas and whether they provide on-site protection? Mr. Stieger responded that many of the clinics are in residential areas and that policing is not a normal procedure. He stated that in his 12 years experience, he is not aware of any types of violent/criminal activity that has taken place in or near such facilities. In his own program, during the past 10 years he has had no violent incidents. Commissioner BRINKMAN questioned whether any other facility provides gang related therapy. Mr. Stieger responded that to his knowledge, there are no facilities doing any gang intervention other than his. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked about the number of staff working at the facility Mr. Stieger responded that there are 9 staff members at the Harlan clinic due to the volume of clients. Mr. Stieger continued his presentation with demographics of his clientele, the parking situation and the fact that the facility has changed their rules in order to control congestion during transition periods between sessions. The facility issues a policy of rules to each client upon entering the program. He stated that he responds to neighborhood complaints immediately and has attempted to rectify each situation. Mr. Stieger also explained that the sign in front of his business was put up and simply stated the name of the program and that he had no idea that it would be offensive to the public. Once aware of the problem, the sign was changed. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked questions regarding the bus schedules and whether they coincide with the therapy session times and also about the lighting around the building. Stieger responded that yes there are numerous options for routes and times. He also stated that the building is very well lit and that the property is shielded enough by trees and shrubs that the lights are not a problem to the neighborhood. Commissioner BRINKMAN also asked how a participant would flunk the family violence program. Mr. Stieger responded that each client signs a contract with his clinic and they would flunk by violating the contract. They are required to be clean and sober. That is monitored by drug screens, breath tests and Antibuse. They are also required to follow the policy of rules. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the parking and the renters. Stieger stated that there are 2 to 3 staff members at the facility in the evenings and that only one of the renters owns a vehicle that is parked on the property. Mr. Stieger also informed the Commission that the renters are in no way related to the clinic, they are not clients. Commissioner SNOW reviewed Mr. Stieger's credentials and the licenses held by his clinic. Planning Commission Page 5 01115198 Commissioner GOKEY asked how big the client base is and about the potential for growth. Stieger stated that the laws will be greatly changed in the spring of 1998, so it is difficult for him to estimate the growth. He could have a number of competitors. He stated that he treats around 300 people per week, but that his client base is larger than that because of the different types of treatment and the frequency of some compared to others. Mr. Stieger also stated that the majority of his clients are amenable and that they want to get help. He noted that people do not usually spend money for treatment unless they want help and want to change, even if it is court ordered. Mr. Stieger also explained why clients do not act out in certain environments. He also explained why his facility is not the meeting place for drinking and loitering that has been portrayed as. Discussion followed regarding court ordered treatment, the treatment of youth offenders and the types of treatment at each of the Family Violence clinic locations. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the neighborhood approached the clinic when it opened about the sign and the clientele. Mr. Stieger said that until the neighborhood meetings he was not approach except by, he believes, a relative of a neighbor about the sign. The following people spoke in favor of the special use permit: Michelle Williams of 6141 Pierson Court. Linda Ault of 1387 Wyoming Street. Liz Faragher of 4243 Harlan. Peggy Guillen of 560 S. Elliot. In general, the comments in favor included assurance that the clients are not dangerous to people at the clinic or in the neighborhoods, they are seeking treatment in order to get help. Sometimes it takes people to show compassion to people that are trying to get help. These comments were made by female staff members of the clinics and each woman stressed the idea that they are not fearful of working with the types of clients that are treated. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked each staff person about the parking situation and if they would oppose parking in the adjacent lot. Each person responded that they do not find parking difficult and that they would not hesitate to parkin the adjacent lot if it was needed. The following people spoke in opposition of the special use permit. Lois Phelan (address not given). Mary Knobbe of 7470 Highway 73, Evergreen. Owns property at 4275 Harlan. Dick Phelan of 4295 Harlan. (concurred with Mary Knobbe). Planning Commission Page 6 01/15/98 Mr. Knobbe of 7470 Highway 73, Evergreen. (concurred with Mary Knobbe). Bill Davis of 4300 Pierson. Laura Drapeau of 4280 Harlan. Luann Quintana of 4325 Depew Street. Loretta Garcia of 6190 West 40th The comments in opposition included concern for the traffic, concern that the clinic is in the middle of the neighborhood and that the clients are not model citizens. The citizens are concerned that the clinic clients are wandering the neighborhood and the citizens are worried about the children that live in the neighborhood and play at the park. The citizens also wondered why this particular site was chosen. Mr. Lipstein responded that the site was chosen because (a.) economics (b) location and (c) Mr. Stieger and his commercial realtor believed that the property was zoned as a "use by right". Closing statements by the applicant and the citizen's group in opposition were heard. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner SNOW moved that Case No. SUP-98-1, a request for approval of Special Use Permit to allow non-residential counseling and treatment in a Restricted-Commercial zone district at 4243 Harlan Street, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It will fill a void in services and provide a public benefit. 2. The criteria used to evaluate a special use permit support approval. 3. Staff recommends approval. 4. The Commission recognizes the fear of the neighborhood about violence, considering the nature of the clientele and treatment offered. However, the clinic has been there since August and the Police report no increased incidents in the neighborhood during that period. With the following conditions: 1. The special use permit be issued to the Family Violence Program at 4243 Harlan Street under the direction of Greg Stieger. 2. No residential treatment be allowed. The applicant may continue to rent the two independent living units in the basement with the proviso that the tenants are not patients of the program. 3. The only sign allowed on the property will have only the address and the initials F. V. P. 4. The City retains the right to require the applicant to hire private security in the future to patrol its own grounds and any parking areas on the office building to the Planning Commission Page 7 01/15/98 south, if they have made arrangements to use that parking, if there are sufficient problems about loitering and other undesirable behaviors. 5. The applicant must pursue overflow parking on the office building property to the south between the time of this public hearing and the City Council hearing, and in the interim the City should check how crowded the parking lot is in the evening and give a recommendation to the City Council, whether additional parking is or is not needed. Seconded by Commissioner GOKEY and amended by Commissioner THOMPSON. Discussion continued regarding capacity limitations and the results of violating the special use permit and its consequences. Commissioner BRINKMAN addressed the citizens and told them that they are lucky to have someone in the neighborhood that is open to take comments and to act on them. There is a two way conversation, the building owner is listening and hopefully it works both ways. She understands the idea of "not in my back yard" but thinks that you are lucky to have a neighbor that is available to listen and to talk to if there are issues. Commissioner SHOCKLEY addressed the Commission and the audience and informed of his plan to vote NO. He is not doubtful of the good intentions of the Family Violence Program and the people working there. As part of what the neighbors have said and part of what he has seen in his own life about people that get into programs to avoid "hard time", he cannot in good conscience vote to put something like this in a neighborhood. The motion carried 6 to 1, with Commissioner SHOCKLEY voting NO. PUBLIC FORUM: Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ed Stucka of 4155 Lamar to come forward to speak. He had a complaint about the snow plowing in the City of Wheat Ridge. He thinks that they are doing too good of a job. He would like to know why the snow plows have to put the snow back on the sidewalks from the street. His name and number were taken down in order to be passed on to the Public Works Department. 9. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner THOMPSON asked if staff had any updates on the Comprehensive Plan or any other meetings. Staff responded that the meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 2"a. The Commission will have copies of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Page 8 01/15/98 10. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner BRINKMAN asked about the happenings with the Chesrown property. Staff responded that the City is in negotiation with Chesrown for an agreement to settle the issue and part of the agreement is bringing the site up to standards, in terms of drainage, erosion control and the wetlands mitigation that they are supposed to be doing on the property according to the wetlands permit. 11. DISCUSSION & DECISION ITEMS None 12. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS None 13. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN, all in favor. Barb Fuller, Recording Secretary Jan' e Thompson, Chairperson 01/1 rage a