SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Ralph Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Kimball Young and Diana Kirk. Lynn Beckstead, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Gilbert Iker were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Everett Joyce, Ray McCandless, Cheri Coffey and Katia Pace.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of May 4, and May 18, 1995 as presented. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Ms. Cromer voted u Aye." Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. Mr. Howa requested the record reflect this action would need ratification by a quorum. Ratification occurred later in the meeting (see Page 3).
PETITIONS and CONDITIONAL USES PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-32 by Salt Lake City Corporation requesting The Canterbury Apartments located at 1841 West Morton Drive be declared surplus in order to transfer ownership to the Salt Lake City Housing Authority.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Rosemary Kappes, Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Housing Authority, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response he closed the hearing and
opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-32, based on the findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. Mr. Howa requested the record reflect this action would need ratification by a quorum. Ratification occurred later in the meeting (see Page 3).
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-94-42 by F. C. Stangl for Clementine Partnership requesting Salt Lake City to close and declare surplus a portion of Swaner Road and deed to them a triangular parcel of land located at Swaner Road and California Avenue.
Ms. Katia Pace presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Neilson moved to approve Petition No. 400-94-42 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Eric Robinson requesting an existing twin home located at 1740 South Oak Springs Drive (2675 East) be converted to condominiums.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer asked why an inspection was not required. Mr. McCandless stated that according to Roger Evans, Director of Building and Licensing Services, since neither the building nor the tenants would change, an inspection would not be required.
Mr. Young moved to approve this request and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ratification of Previous Actions
Mr. Becker moved to ratify the action to approve the minutes of May 4, and May 18, 1995 and to ratify the action to approve Petition No. 400-95-32 now that a quorum was present. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Cromer voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McBea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-1 68 by Bod Brown requesting a conditional use for a group home at 2487 South 700 East in a Residential “RMF-30" zoning district.
Mr. Howa stated that he would be leaving the meeting before this case would be completed and turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Becker at this time.
Mr. Wright gave a brief history of this case and outlined the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that this matter had been before them on May 4, 1995 at which time they had tabled it, providing more time for the petitioner to meet with the neighborhood and resolve their differences. Mr. Wright handed out copies of four additional conditions that had been added to the staff report and outlined the details of those conditions, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Rodney Brown, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that the resistance to this project had been stronger at the town meeting than at the community council and their land use subcommittee meetings. Mr. Brown stated that this program was designed to reintegrate youths, between 8 and 18 years of age who had been disenfranchised, back into the community and added that this type of service was desperately needed in Salt Lake. Mr. Brown stated that the needs of the youths in this program would be very closely assessed to insure this was the right program for them and once they were placed in this program, the youths would be closely supervised under 24 hour management of the facility. He explained that the temporary residents would attend the public school best suited to their needs as designated by the State of Utah and that this facility offered programs to help them develop the kinds of skills necessary to exist successfully in society. Mr. Brown stated that they had chosen this particular site because they believed it suited their needs better than the other sites they had looked at. He stated that someone had said this house was too nice for a group home and he believed that spoke well for their organization and the investment they were willing to make in this project.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright read a letter submitted to the Planning Office from Mr. Gene Davis, Legislative Representative from this neighborhood, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The letter states that approximately 75 citizens from the community met with the petitioner on May 30th to discuss their questions and concerns relative to this project and that many people believe the petitioner either failed to adequately answer their questions or skirted the issues. The letter suggests that additional conditions be placed on this project if it receives approval to include protection of the youths housed on the site stemming from the number of them present and the broad spectrum of ages allowed at the facility; that backgrounds and court judgments be made available; and controls to ensure this facility operates as a group home, not a half-way house for juveniles.
Ms. Tawna Merrill, a resident of the area, expressed concern that this project would contribute to the existing instability of the area, that the promise that none of the youths would have criminal records had now been changed to not allow any sex offenders into the program; that the State might exercise its powers and force youths into the program who might not meet the standards of CBTS; that the petitioner had failed to adequately address all of their questions and concerns; that some of the homes Mr. Brown had operated were not currently running; that the facility should operate under an ''open door" policy to address neighborhood concerns; that there was no “time-out" area provided for the residents of the project; that there were too many of these kinds of facilities in the area; concern about increases in traffic congestion and parking problems; that the size of the facility was not adequate to meet the needs of the residents; and that this proposed use of this historical structure would do damage to the structure. The letter also requests that residents be limited to eight and the adult staff members be increased to a minimum of three; that older boys be provided separate living areas from younger boys; that a "time-out" space be provided; and an open door policy be implemented for the community. It also states that they do not believe CBTS has had adequate experience with a group home of this size on a property this small. The letter concludes by stating that the residents of this community are very concerned about their own safety and requesting that the Planning Commission honor their concerns, take a thorough look at this matter and deny it. Ms. Merrill handed out a petition signed by 217 people in opposition to this project, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. She demonstrated on briefing boards, the locations of other similar facilities in the area.
Mr. Becker asked if the petitioner typically utilized community advisory boards.
Mr. Rod Brown stated that they believed this was a very powerful and united community and they would like to be involved with the members of this community. Mr. Brown stated that their intentions were to hold open houses prior to any youths being housed at the facility in order to familiarize the community further with the project.
Mr. Becker explained that the United States Supreme Court had just handled a group home case and one of the biggest issues in the case had had to deal with limiting the size of group homes. Mr. Becker stated that the City involved had limited group homes to eight individuals and the group home had challenged that limitation. He added that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the group home. Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission, by law, could not distinguish between group homes and other single family homes relative to regulations.
Mr. Roger Atkinson, a resident of the area, handed out copies of pictures of the other similar facilities in this area and stated that he had helped Ms. Merrill with the briefing boards and getting the petitions signed. Some of those facilities include group homes for unwed mothers, four plexes across the street, boys and girls club, low income housing, removal of housing for commercial expansion, United Way home for battered women and Fellowship Hall on 21 00 South 850 East. He stated that they were not necessarily opposed to this group home as they were opposed to additional encroachment of these kinds of facilities into their neighborhood. Mr. Atkinson said they were trying to build up their neighborhood and they believed this project would be counter to those efforts. He requested the Planning Commission consider the number of these facilities in their area and asked what the appeal process involved if this request were approved. Mr. Atkinson stated that they were not just worried about the residents of these projects but the friends who would come into the area to visit them.
Ms. Lisa Forbush, a resident of the area, stated that the names on the petitions they had turned in were not just names, they were people who lived and worked in the area, who spent their time and money there and were raising their families there. Ms. Forbush stated that the children of the area would have to walk past this group home to get to school and that many of the neighbors were elderly who could not attend this meeting but were concerned about this issue. She stated that there were people who would move out of the area if this group home were approved and added that they were not willing to give these people up in exchange for the group home.
Ms. Leslie Sutter, an employee of CBTS, stated that she had a history of working for nonprofit organizations and that she was concerned about the mentality being expressed of “not in my back yard". She stated that the YWCA had just celebrated its centennial and that there had been opposition to it when it started. Ms. Sutter stated that these youths were members of our community and needed to be made to feel like members of the community. She stated that they would not be making the kind of investment they were making in this area if they were not willing to be active participants who were concerned about the community. Ms. Sutter stated that fifty years ago when an African American had moved into her neighborhood, the response had been “Not here, not here. What about our children?" She stated that we could not continue to say, “Not in my back yard."
Ms. Tammy Stevenson, a resident of the area, expressed concern for the children in the area who were more gullible relative to crime and added that she was opposed to any criminals being housed in this facility.
Ms. Darcy Ostergard, a resident of the area, stated that single family residences should be able to be differentiated from group homes because if a family had twelve children, they would not all be in treatment like the residents of a group home were. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance would not allow a bed and breakfast in this area but added that it would be more suited to the area than a group home and listed some of the impacts to the neighborhood that would be the same as for a group home. Ms. Ostergard stated that they did not have a “Not in my back yard" attitude but rather that they were trying to do better for their children and to deal with the number of these facilities already located in this area.
Mr. John Wilson, a member of this community and an employee of CBTS, stated that he was concerned that the statement read by Ms. Tawna Merrill had been written after the signatures had been obtained, not before. Mr. Wilson stated that many people who had attended the town meeting had already signed the petition prior to having their questions and concerns addressed and he requested the Planning Commission keep that in mind while deliberating this issue. He stated that after the town meeting their staff had spent time with many of the residents of the area on a one-on-one basis answering questions and following that, many of those people were then not opposed to the project. He stated that one of the reasons they liked this area was because of the community spirit, that they wanted an area where their residents could join the cub scouts and the boy scouts, and where they could become active members of the community. Mr. Wilson said they would work with their residents to help improve the community through such projects as graffiti removal in order to instill a feeling in these kids that they were giving something back to the community as well as receiving from it.
Mr. Becker asked Ms. Merrill if the people who had signed the petition had been able to read the document attached to the petitions prior to signing the petition.
Ms. Merrill stated that all the petition said was that they were opposed to the project. She explained that they had been informed by Mr. Everett Joyce, of the Planning Staff, at the community council meeting that petitions were not valid unless a reason for the petition had been stated. Ms. Merrill said that had been the reason why she had then compiled those concerns to attach to the petition.
Mr. Mark Weisbender, stated that he owned a house in Sugar House, that he owned a business in Sugar House and that he worked for CBTS on a part time basis. Mr. Weisbender stated that he shared the concerns of those in attendance at this meeting and that maybe they could alleviate the fears people had of young people to a more positive attitude by working with the residents of this project to help clean up the neighborhood. He stated that the investment made into this area was not being made by an organization who was not interested in the community. Mr. Weisbender stated that the residents of this project would not be out after their curfew hours which was typically when the types of things occurred that the residents of this neighborhood were fearful would happen. He added that these youths would be entitle to have family visits but would not be allowed to have friends loitering around the project. Mr. Weisbender stated that they loved the elderly population and hoped that they could tap into the resources of this elderly population, as well as the rest of this community, and utilize them in a very positive way with these kids. He said the values the elderly population had were the kinds they hoped to instill in these young kids. Mr. Weisbender stated that the youths they accepted at their facilities were screened very carefully because of liability concerns. He stated that it appeared to him that Mr. Gene Davis had a conflict of interest in this matter due to his connection to Valley Mental Health and the residential units they owned in this community which he had spoken in favor of, and yet he was opposed to this project.
Ms. Ruth Park, a resident of the area, stated that she lived one block away from this project and that she was against it.
Ms. Laura Hunt, a resident of the area, handed out copies of a list of disturbing occurrences on Green Street between 2490 and 2700 South in the past two and one half years, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Hunt stated that she had been one those who had stayed to talk with the staff of this project and had felt better about it until she got home and had time to let everything sink in. She outlined the disturbances contained in the handout and said she was bringing them up to illustrate how fragile their neighborhood was. Ms. Hunt said she was afraid those who could would move out of the area if this project received approval. She requested the Planning Commission allow this neighborhood the opportunity to resolve their existing problems before adding to them.
Mr. Dave Forbush, a resident of area, stated that he understood the rights of the petitioner to establish their business, but added that they were concerned that the agreements contained in the conditional use would be adhered to. He said he saw the needs exceeding the allowance for 1 2 residents and asked what assurance the community had that 1 2 would be the maximum number of youths allowed. Mr. Forbush asked what opportunities the community would have to express their concerns with the project. He stated that he appreciated the needs of these youths, that his wife was a cub scout leader and these boys would be welcomed into their group, but added that they were still concerned that the needs for resources were great and the resources were few. Mr. Forbush said they were concerned that their neighborhood would have to shoulder a greater burden in this matter than they should be expected to shoulder.
Ms. Kathy Hills, a resident of the area, stated that two of her children had been victims of juvenile crimes in this area and that the system was not handling the juvenile problems in an adequate way. She stated that it was not fair to bring more juvenile offenders into their area. Ms. Hills stated that one of the friends of a resident of the unwed mothers' home had held a gun to her son's head and asked who would be supervising these boys whose curfew would be 1 :00 in the morning.
Mr. Rod Brown responded that the level of intensive supervision and structured time frames were such that they would not need to establish a curfew. He stated that two staff members would be present throughout the nights and additional staff would be on site during the daytime to provide skills development services. Mr. Brown stated that they believed the average number of residents would be about nine with 12 being a maximum which would be monitored regularly by the State. He stated that their residents would not be out roaming the streets at 1:00 in the morning.
Mr. Kim Hills, a resident of the area, stated that his concern was the friends of the residents of the facility who would be visiting. Mr. Hills stated that it was his son who had had the gun held to his head by a visitor to one of the unwed mothers and added that they did not need any more group homes in their neighborhood.
Ms. Nicole Cuthbert, a resident of the area, stated that they had asked a lot of questions that had not been answered. She stated that they were concerned that once this was allowed, it would always be there and the neighborhood would never have any say as to what would go on there. Ms. Cuthbert said there were a lot of young girls and children in this area and they were concerned for their safety. She stated that nobody could guarantee How any given youth of this facility might behave and if only one violent incident occurred, it would not be worth having this group home in the area. She stated that the elderly residents in this area were scared to death of this project and she did not believe they would interact with the youths of this project as suggested by Mr. Weisbender in order to share their values with them.
Ms. Cuthbert stated that the staff of this project wanted these youths to become part of a community that was unwilling to participate with them. She stated that the amount of opposition to this project was great and the community would not be willing to help this project. She added that she had two daughters and she was very nervous about this project and did not want to have in this neighborhood.
Mr. Paul Meacham, a resident of the area, referred to item #11 in the staff report findings of fact relative to net cumulative adverse impacts and stated that he had unsuccessfully attempted to plot these kinds of facilities on a City-wide map. Mr. Meacham stated that Mr. Everett Joyce had informed him that he had just received a list of these homes from the State of Utah and was also attempting to plot them. He said the Planning Staff had not yet completed such an analysis but had made a finding that "The development meets the design and land use guidelines of the master plan and meets the goal of the City housing policy." Mr. Meacham said he would maintain that the net cumulative adverse impact on this particular neighborhood would be major and significant. He said he would maintain that the Planning Staff had not taken a position and that since they had taken no position, his word was a good as the Planning Staff's. He said he would predict that on a unit per block basis, the density of these kinds of facilities was significantly higher in this neighborhood than in the rest of the City. He stated that he would follow up, with Mr. Joyce, to determine if his guess was as good as, or better than Mr. Joyce's. Mr. Meacham stated that that factor alone was enough for the Planning Commission to, at a minimum, hold their decision and in his opinion, enough to reject the proposal. Mr. Meacham stated that he had had two foster children in his home over the years, that several years ago he served in the House of Representatives in the State, that he had been involved in church leadership in the neighborhood for a number of years and had been directly involved in some of the problems that had been expressed to the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Meacham stated that he had been involved in the environment that followed these kinds of facilities and had tried to address those problems. He stated that if this decision were to be made by popular vote, the outcome would be clear. He added that his arguments did not address the issue of "Not in my back yard" because their back yards were already full. He said they were not here to campaign for removal of those facilities already in existence in their area but to request no more be allowed.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission does not make their decisions based on how many people were in favor of or opposed to particular items but added that that did not mean they were not influenced by the comments they heard from the public. He explained that the Planning Commission was bound to consider the policies of the City and to make decisions consistent with those policies.
Mr. Darcy Hunt, a resident of the area, stated that he did not believe this was an atmosphere where more unstable youths should be placed. He expressed concern at the lack of clear cut distinctions relative to the fact that the residents of this facility might have criminal records but would not be placed at this site because of that record and what that might mean for the future. Mr. Hunt stated that there was a significant elderly population in this area who were not able to attend meetings like this to offer their input and who were frightened of projects like this.
Ms. Tori Spencer, a resident of the area, stated that the petitioners had stated that they wanted to locate in this area because they liked the area, the sense of community which they hoped to instill in these youths, and they wanted to avail themselves of the community services such as boy scouts. She asked what the community would be getting in return and stated it would be instability, violence, fear and more criminal activity. She asked what kind of trade that was.
Ms. Hunt said this was too one sided with the community doing all of the giving. She asked what percentage of time spent in the facility would be totally supervised and what rehabilitation skills would be learned.
Ms. Spencer stated that even though they had been assured that no one with a history of sexual offenses would be allowed at this facility, no one would know exactly all of the abuse these youths might have suffered. She stated that there were no guarantees that one of these boys would not come into their community and grab one of their little girls and "do who knows what." Ms. Spencer stated that one crime against one of their children would be too much to sacrifice. She said she was totally against this project being approved and that their community had enough of this type of service.
Ms. Stahley, a resident of the area, stated that her house was three houses away from this site and that she was definitely against this proposal. She stated that it wouldn't be too long before she had to sell her home and with this kind of influence in the area, she wouldn't be able to get anything out of it after putting in 38 hard years of labor.
Mr. Darnell Jones, a resident of the area, stated that he shared many of the concerns voiced by others, that he understood the desire of the petitioners to work with these young kids and help turn them around, but he expressed concern about what would happen when this particular petitioner left the site.
Mr. Becker explained that under the conditional use process, any new use of the site would have to go through the entire conditional use process before the Planning Commission just as this petitioner had been required to do. He also explained that any conditions not being adhered to would lead to a revocation of the conditional use permit for this facility which could occur within a relatively short period time.
Ms. Marion Aston, a resident of the area, stated that she was concerned that no one knew what the State might do. She stated that she was concerned that at some point in the future the State might step in and say that since this site had been used for a group home once, it could be used for one again and that they might not require the same conditions be met for approval.
Ms. Yvonne Jones, a resident of the area, asked how the Planning Commissioners were selected.
Mr. Becker explained that they were appointed by the Mayor, and confirmed by the City Council, to serve two four year terms. He explained that some of them had been appointed by Mayor DePaulis, some by Mayor Corradini and some had been appointed by Mayor DePaulis and reappointed by Mayor Corradini. He added that they were chosen for diversity of geography and profession.
Ms. Jones stated that the principle of being told by the federal government that a neighborhood had to accommodate group homes went against the grain with her. She stated that they had banded together to create a certain atmosphere in their neighborhood and she hoped the Planning Commission would consider that while making their determinations.
Ms. Lori Nudeau, an employee of CBTS, stated that she wanted to personally vouch for the staff of this organization and added that they had a very high success rate of rehabilitating their kids. She stated that these kids needed to be made to feel part of the community, that they needed help and could not just be pushed off to the side. Ms. Nudeau said she fully understood the concerns of those in attendance since she was the mother of five children. She stated that she lived in West Valley City with no group home within miles of her and yet they experienced the same type of graffiti and criminal problems the people speaking tonight had spoken of. She stated that these problems needed to be dealt with and there was not better program than this one to do that.
Mr. Thomas Graham, a resident of the area, stated that he did not believe there was any doubt that putting another group home in their neighborhood would not have a positive effect on the neighborhood. He stated that he had no problem with group homes or the petitioners but added that his concern was the number of these facilities already located in their area.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Rod Brown, the petitioner, if there were any issues he wished to address.
Mr. Brown responded that he believed a lot of the anger he had sensed at the town meeting had come from a sense of being unempowered and he believed people were living with a great sense of uncertainty. He said he believed services such as this were crucial to the well-being of our society and if this particular site did not work out, he would pursue this project at another location. Mr. Brown stated that there had to be some step between incarceration and institutional facilities. He added that if society continued to place children in large institutional facilities, the existing problems would be exacerbated.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright addressed Mr. Paul Meacham's remarks relative to the staff's Finding of Fact #11 and stated that the staff had received a listing from the State of Utah on group homes which the staff had then mapped to ensure compliance with spacing standards. Mr. Wright said no evidence had been found. that there would be a net cumulative effect on this community with the approval of this proposal, based on those spacing standards. Mr. Wright stated that the staff had mapped other communities in the City and that the spacing effect was much more intense in the central area of the City than in the Sugar House area. He said that was why the staff had determined there was no need to change the ·finding relative to net cumulative effects. Mr. Wright said he wanted to make it clear that the inference made by Mr. Meacham that the staff had not done their homework in that regard that they did not know what the effects would be was not an accurate statement. Mr. Wright stated that the staff had analyzed the information provided by the State of Utah and did not feel they needed to change that finding.
Mr. Young said he did not believe there was anybody in Salt Lake City who had not been personally impacted by crime and that the people who lived in the Sugar House area were not unique in how crime had impacted their neighborhood, that crime was a City-wide problem.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission did not have a quorum present at this time and any decision they made would have to be ratified at the next meeting.
Ms. Cromer address the request for a “time-out" location at the site and stated that a decision to use “time-out" would be a decision that would affect the entire philosophical orientation of the program. She stated that as a behavioral scientist, she personally very rarely used the “time-out" technique with youth of this age because it was difficult to physically move an angry adolescent to an area they did not want to be moved to. Ms. Cromer stated that, therefore, she did not believe that a decision to require “time-out" should be made by the Planning Commission. Ms. Cromer stated that an act that might be considered criminal in an older person is often referred to as a mental health problem in a juvenile and she questioned the wisdom of the Planning Commission making conditions relative to criminal offense histories of the youth targeted for a program such as this one since the courts did not deal with this issue in the same manner. She stated that she believed language on that issue would be problematic in terms of enforcement.
Mr. Everett stated that the language contained in the additional conditions that had been handed out to the Planning Commission at the beginning of this hearing was actually part of the definition relative to group homes in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Kirk asked Ms. Cromer if, in her experience in dealing with organizations such as the proposed group home, she found these kinds of organizations to be well structured and organized.
Ms. Cromer responded that she still did not have a clear idea of what a day would be like for the youths residing at this group home. Ms. Cromer stated that liability issues probably helped motivate the providers.
Ms. Kirk asked Ms. Cromer if some reporting to the State would be required relative to how the kids were supervised.
Ms. Cromer responded that she believed those arrangements would be taken care of as part of the contract negotiations and the State would probably not enter into a contract until those agreements were resolved. Ms. Cromer reiterated that she did not have a sense of what the moment to moment monitoring would be at this facility.
Mr. Young asked the staff to review the conditions of approval once more.
Mr. Wright outlined the conditions contained in the staff report as well as the added four conditions that had been handed out at the beginning of this hearing.
Mr. Young asked if the petitioner had been informed of the added conditions.
Mr. Wright explained that he had been informed about them which was why Mr. Brown had made his statement earlier that none of the kids would be placed in the group home because of criminal offenses but had added that some of them, due to the nature of their lives, might have records.
Mr. Young stated that even though he did not live in the Sugar House community, he did not feel his neighborhood was exempt from the kinds of problems the people speaking at this meeting had mentioned. Mr. Young said he believed the City had an obligation to deal with these kinds of problems. Mr. Young then moved to approve Petition No. 410-168 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as well as the additional four conditions presented at this meeting plus a condition that a Community Advisory Board be organized and instituted to benefit the group home as well as the community in monitoring and regulating the affairs and services provided. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion.
Mr. Neilson asked if Mr. Young wanted to include a number of members recommended for the Community Advisory Committee.
Mr. Young said he believed that would be left up to the petitioner.
Mr. Wright suggested the committee contain equal representation from the group home and the community.
Mr. Young included Mr. Wright's suggestion in the motion.
Ms. Cromer stated she believed this matter would be appealed if the Planning Commission approved this request at this time. She stated that she believed the neighborhood would continue to fight this request until they received more information and their fears were reduced. Ms. Cromer added that she believed the community had that right. Ms. Cromer stated that even with her background, she still had a great number of questions about this project. She said that when she had seconded Ms. Short's motion to table this matter on May 4, 1995 she had had no idea the meeting to provide additional information to the community would occur a mere 48 hours prior to the Planning Commission hearing. She added that she had hoped it would be held during a time frame that would allow resolution of some of the issues and that she did not believe that resolution had yet occurred. She stated that she believed sending this action along its way would be setting the stage for an appeal and more adversarial processes. Ms. Cromer said she felt the organization appeared to be a good organization and she would like to see more negotiation occur between the provider and the community. Ms. Cromer stated that therefore, she could not support this motion.
Mr. Neilson stated that he wanted to speak in support of the motion and that he did not see any correlation between people dealing drugs on Green Street and the intended use of the property. Mr. Neilson said he believed there was need for group homes in the City and he had voted in favor of the group home for the mentally ill on 900 East about two blocks from his previous home. He added that even though he had not been able to attend the meeting on May 4, 1995 when the application by Odyssey House had been heard he had registered his approval and support of that project as a neighbor, not as a Planning Commissioner, with the secretary to the Planning Commission prior to that meeting. Mr. Neilson reiterated that there was great need for these kinds of facilities.
Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young and Mr. Neilson voted “Aye." Ms. Cromer voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. Mr. Becker requested the record reflect that this motion would need ratification by a quorum at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission would only be ratifying this action at the June 15th meeting, not holding another public hearing.
Mr. Becker stated that the appeal process required any appeals be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision which would be June 15, 1 995 since this action needed ratification. Mr. Becker urged the petitioners to spend a substantial amount of additional time with the community to explain their methods of operation, extent of supervision, their screening process and what would happen to youths not meeting the requirements of the facility. Mr. Becker stated that the fears of the community were well understood by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kirk informed the community that she had served on the Community Advisory Board for the YWCA and had found it highly beneficial to understand the workings of that organization. She suggested the community volunteer to serve on that board to help them understand this organization. Ms. Kirk also suggested Mr. Joyce work with the community to educate them on what constituted a group home so that they would understand that low income housing, boys and girls clubs and Alcoholics Anonymous resource centers were not classified as group homes as some members of this community seemed to believe.
Mr. Wright explained that the appeal to the City Council had some very specific requirements in order for the appeal to be accepted. Mr. Wright stated that the following provisions would have to apply: 1) any party aggrieved by the decision could file an appeal; 2) the appeal shall specify any alleged error made by the Planning Commission; 3) the appeal shall be considered by the City Council on the record made before the Planning Commission and no new evidence will be heard by the City Council unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration by the Planning Commission; 4) the City Council shall review and decide the appeal according to standards in Chapter 27 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5) the City Council shall uphold the decision of the Planning Commission unless the City Council finds that the decision of the Planning Commission was not supported by the findings of fact based upon the applicable standards of approval. Mr. Wright stated that filing a letter stating that someone wanted to appeal this matter would not qualify as an appeal, that an error of the Planning Commission would have to be stated and demonstrated by the record to provide evidence to support the appeal.
Several people from the audience asked questions about what would count as a reason for appeal and what would be involved in hiring a lawyer to assist them.
Mr. Becker explained that they could hire an attorney to represent them and added that there was an appeal process available on the City Council's decision to the District Court. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission did the best and most fair job they could in considering the matters that came before them according to City policy and requirements.
One of the women in the audience asked if anything the community had had to say had influenced the Planning Commission because it did not appear that they had been very productive. Mr. Becker said he did not want to get into a debate with the public but added that he believed every Planning Commissioner had been moved by the comments made by the community. Mr. Becker said that was why they had added the condition relative to the Community Advisory Board.
Mr. Brown stated that the comments made by the community had also impacted the staff of the proposed facility and had helped them formulate some beginning points of what they needed to look at and that those comments would be taken into consideration.
One of the members of the audience asked if the community would be part of the decision making process for this facility through the Community Advisory Committee. Mr. Becker stated that that was the idea behind that condition of approval. The member of the audience then asked how they could control the existing group homes in their area and added that their past experiences were the underlying foundation to their opposition to this proposal. Mr. Becker stated that the only recourse he was aware of was to keep hammering away at the people who operated the facility.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.