Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRIENDSHIP HOMES, INC - GROUP HOME - 32-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPage 3 40 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MAY 23, 1988 FRIENDSHIP HOMES, INC. - GROUP HOME Debbie deBesche gave the staff description of the project. Dorothy Stout, the applicant, stated the main purpose of the home was to serve those people who are not ready to be placed in a nursing home but require 24 hour care. She commented that she would help the residents with their meals, laundry, cleaning their rooms, and taking medication. She stated that the residents' families would be involved with the home, i.e., birthdays, special occasions, etc. She indicated the reason she chose the area was because of its closeness to the hospital and doctors. She stated that none of the residents drive cars but they need assistance provided for them. She stated that at the present time, she has three persons in the home which require this type of care. She stated that, at the neighborhood meeting, the largest opposition issue was future hospital expansion plans. She commented that this should not be a concern because her home would not have any influence on what the hospital does. Debbie deBesche stated that staff recommended approval with the following six conditions: (1) that the home be limited to four (4) elderly individuals; (2) that a maximum of two (2) staff persons work in the home at any one time; (3) that the elderly residents would not be allowed to drive nor store automobiles on the property; (4) that the home be restricted to the site plan submitted and there 'will be no exterior changes, other than minor facial changes (new awning, correct a porch defect, etc.); (5) that there will be no signage for the group home; and (6) that the yard and landscaping be maintained in an orderly manner. Member Crews inquired about the second condition. Dorothy Stout stated that she currently lives in the home. She added a volunteer registered nurse and a part-time paid employee also help out. Member Edwards asked Ms. deBesche to state the differences between a rezon- ing, a variance, and a special review. Ms. deBesche stated that the zoning is RL, Low Density Residential, and that this application is not requiring a change in zoning. She stated that group homes are allowed in RL zonings but they have to meet certain criteria. Page 4 to Member Kern pointed out that this was not a rezoning issue but a special review. Dave Yust stated that the home began in October 1987 without a license. He commented that Ms. Stout intentionally began this home without local approval and is in violation with the neighborhood covenant. He added that he sees this as a crack in the covenant. Paul Eckman stated that protective covenants are private devices in subdivi- sions to limit land use and to provide for regulation. He commented what protective covenants provide for or do not provide for should be taken up in court if there is a dispute. He added that these are private matters. Chairperson O'Dell asked if Mr. Yust could seek other means for his concerns. Paul Eckman stated that if the neighborhood felt the covenant has been viol- ated, they might consult with a private attorney to see what remedies are available to them. Member Kern asked if any rulings at this meeting would override the cove- nants. Paul Eckman stated that the rulings are separate and would have no affect. Member Edwards stated that, for further clarification, when it comes to the enforceability of private covenants, neither the Planning and Zoning Board nor the City are in a position to hear these issues. Paul Eckman stated that this was correct. Member Brown commented that any decisions made by this Board should not discourage anyone's actions toward this matter. Al Hilderman stated that he bought his land because it was low density. He stated he did not agree with the group home in this area. Member Crews asked Ms. deBesche to review the criteria for group homes so the audience would be aware of them. Ms. deBesche stated that the basic criteria for a group homes is as follows: 1. Group Homes in RL zones shall conform to a lot area and lot separation. In this case, the lot has to have a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. per each three residents. 2. Group Homes have to be 1,500 ft. from any other group home within the city. 3. Other issues reviewed include building height and setback, building coverage, external signage, traffic, parking, and compatibility of the architectural design with the existing neighborhood. Paul Eckman stated that the Code also stated that the Board can specify the type of group home, i.e., elderly, handicapped, etc. Page 5 • • Member Kern pointed out that this was stated mandated; that any zone is eligible for a group home. Don Barrett stated that he supported the approval of the group home. He informed the Board that his mother-in-law and father are presently in the home. He commented that he was happy with the results, that the home was well kept, and that group homes are allowed in this zoning. He added there was no traffic problem. He stated that Ms. Stout does an excellent job taking care of the elderly. Chuck Rhodes asked, for clarification, as to how the home started without the City's permission. He stated he was against the project for the reason that it began without approval. He added he was not against the project for the use of the property. Peter Barnes stated that a lot of uses are started without the City's permission. He stated that on December 29, 1987, he received a formal complaint. A notice was then sent to the owner and occupants. This notice stated the property had to be brought into conformance with City Code. The two ways this could hap- pen are: 1) discontinue the use, or 2) get approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that if the home was denied by the Board, the owner would have to discontinue the use as a group home and evict one resident. Member Brown inquired about the requirement of state licensing. Mr. Barnes stated the licensing application can be submitted if the Board approves the group home. Member Brown inquired about the status of the occupancy. Mr. Barnes stated the City can not issue a certificate of occupancy at the present time until the home is approved. Chairperson O'Dell asked that, since the home is not in conformance with the Code, if it is not the City's position to punish at this point. Mr. Barnes stated that the Code orders removal of the violation and that the applicant has taken the appropriate steps at this point. Member Brown asked if the normal course of events were to legalize the use, then make application to the State for licensing, and then to move people into the home. Mr. Barnes replied that this was correct. Member Brown asked what would happen if the State did not approve the license immediately. Mr. Barnes replied that the City would issue a temporary license to cover the State's back log. Paul Eckman stated that if the State rejected the application, the City would revoke the temporary certificate of occupancy. Page 6 • 0 Mr. Barnes stated that the zoning code does not deal with operational issues of the group home. Mr. Rhodes wondered if the Board was being put in an awkward position by knowing Ms. Stout has been in violation of the Code but would approve the proposal anyway. Member Kern stated the Board was not able to make legal judgments. Paul Eckman stated that he detected some resentment that this use was able to be established before going through the necessary channels. He stated that the populous was on notice by virtue of the City Code and can only become aware when a violation is reported. Mr. Rhodes commented that it was up to concerned citizens to take action when they see these things happening. Paul Eckman stated that in this case, a concerned citizen informed the City that there might be a violation. Mr. Rhodes stated that he assumed the Board was the proper authority to handle the violation. Member Brown stated that when something like this happens, the Board will try to resolve the situation out of court, rather than kick the people out of the home. Member Klataske commented that, as landowners, there is a responsibility to see that we are not in violation of City Codes. Howard Bruner stated he thought he had selected a high quality area of living when he purchased his home. He commented at the meeting a few weeks ago that it was almost unanimously decided by the residents in the area that this group home should not be permitted. He stated it was poor business manage- ment to start a business without following the proper procedures. He stated it was the Board's primary concern to consider the individuals that moved into the area years ago. He added he was concerned that a whole row of group homes could be started along Pitkin because someone could see this as a money -making business. Chairperson O'Dell stated that a whole row of group homes along Pitkin was not possible. The City will not approve another group home within 1,500 feet of this group home. Mr. Bruner stated his real concern is that the neighborhood is totally helpless in this situation where the hospital is buying homes in the area. Member Kern stated he has been in the same situation with business invading his neighborhood. But he restated this is an allowable use and there is little the Board can do about it. ' Page 7 • Paul Eckman commented the State statutes do require the cities in Colorado from prohibiting group homes for elderly and the developmentally disabled in various zones. Debbie DeBesche stated the use is permitted in the RL zones. The RL zones include: single family dwellings, public and private schools for elementary and high school education, public and quasi -public non-profit and recreational use, public utility installations and facilities for the protection and welfare of the surrounding areas, churches, and group homes subject to special review. James Kasal stated he is opposed to the project. He commented Ms. Stout intentionally began and continued to operate the home without local approval or licensing. He stated she has not acted in good faith with the City, State and neighborhood. Jack Vilms stated he is also opposed to the project. He commented the prop- erty values in the area rest on the zoning and a change or impairment of the zoning will effect the value of the homes. Member Kern inquired if there is any evidence that group homes effect the value of property in neighborhoods. Tom Peterson stated no studies have been conducted as to this issue. Shirley Barrett informed her mother has been in the home for the past three years. She said she can not see where having a group home in a neighborhood effects the property value of other homes. Member Edwards moved to approve the special application of Friendship Homes, Inc. - Group Home with the six conditions as stated by staff and reserved his comments to see if there would be a second. Member Crews seconded. Member Edwards stated a group home is an allowable use in the RL zone. The City does have the opportunity to review the application and a decision is made based on the criteria. He indicated comments were made by audience members that the applicant is in violation now, so deny the application. This is not one of the criteria the Board reviews and therefore is not a valid point. He continued, if every neighborhood said they did not want group homes the City would have to set aside an area for group homes; this is not feasible. He added all must share in accommodating for the needs of the elderly. Member Kern inquired about he suitability of this particular house for the use of a group home. Debbie DeBesche stated the State looks at the size and number of bedrooms. Member Kern commented the house does not appear to have a basement and was concerned if each person would have their own bedroom. Page 8 • 0 It, Ms. Stout informed the house has five bedrooms, three on the main floor and two in the basement. Member Brown stated the building meets the criteria for group homes. She commented she does share the concern that the applicant did not follow the proper procedures for starting a group home. Member Kern statcd as long as the home is maintained and that there is no knowledge that there is a decrease in the property value, he has to decide if this is an appropriate placement for a group home. He indicated he does feel this is an appropriate use and therefore supports the motion. Member Crews stated he agreed with the other Board members. He added the Board makes land use decisions, not legal decisions. Member O'Dell stated she also supported the motion. Motion passed 6-0.