PC Minutes 3/28/07 DRAFT

PC Minutes 3/28/07 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 12: SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER, 944 KENTUCKY STREET (LAP)

SUP-01-02-07: Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter, located at 944 Kentucky Street. Submitted by the Lawrence Community Shelter, Inc., for James Dunn, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Lisa Pool introduced the item.

The applicant for the Lawrence Community Shelter Special Use Permit has requested that staff consider a five-year, instead of a one-year SUP approval, and revised language for original conditions #3 and #5. Regarding condition #3, the applicant would prefer not to detail funding options for an alternate shelter location due to fundraising and privacy issues. Concerning condition #5, the applicant has expressed concern about adding six new staff persons due to funding and space limitations.

Regarding the approval time-frame, planning staff continues to recommend a one-year approval due to the unique nature of the land use, findings from the police report, and information in the shelter report. Concerning condition #3, staff has revised the language to require less specific information for an alternate site, while still requiring information substantiating pursuit of an alternate site, including a funding plan. Original conditions #3 and #4 are now conditions #3a and #3b. Original condition #5 requiring six additional staff members has been revised to require additional staff, as determined by the LCS director, to meet safety needs. Staff continues to recommend that the full-time paid security guard be hired. Lastly, “should” has been replaced by “shall” within each condition, as “shall” indicates a mandatory requirement.

The revised conditions are as follows:

1. Within 45 days of SUP approval by the City Commission, LCS shall submit a signed Good Neighbor Agreement with signatures of the LCS staff and at least 15 neighbors.

2. If the shelter remains in its current location within one year, an application for SUP renewal shall be submitted prior to the one-year expiration date.

3. If a renewal application is submitted within one year, the following items shall be submitted with the application materials:

a. Information supporting a new shelter location, including the viability of the new location, i.e. a funding plan.

b. An annual report, which includes a log of police calls (with type of call noted), a log of guests who obtain jobs and housing, numbers of guests who utilize the day and nighttime services, and an update on the on-going commitment to communicate with the surrounding neighborhood and to address concerns of neighbors.

4. The addition of staff member(s) to meet guest, neighborhood, and public safety needs (refer to attached LCS report for specific staff recommendations). At a minimum, one full-time paid security guard, i.e. outside monitor, shall be hired. The maximum occupancy level shall not be exceeded with the addition of new staff members.

5. A signed Site Plan Performance Agreement shall be submitted.

6. The site plan shall be revised to show the following changes:

a. Inclusion of a note which states that, if the shelter remains in its current location by renewal time next year, the items in conditions #2, #3a, and #3b will be submitted (the specific items shall be detailed on the site plan).

b. Revision of the UPR expiration date to reflect the new SUP expiration date and replacement of “UPR” with “SUP”.

c. Revision of the zoning data to note that the site’s new zoning designation is RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office) District.

d. Revision of the staffing section to list the numbers of current day and nighttime staff, including both full and part-time staff. If staffing additions are approved as part of this SUP, these staff members shall be included as part of this new staff count.

e. Inclusion of the following note: “On February 15, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission approved the LCS Special Use Permit (DR-01-06-07), subject to conditions.”

f. Removal of the 18’ by 21’ by 10’4” metal canopy and picket fence, unless the City Commission grants an appeal of the Historic Resources Commission’s determination for this structure to be removed.

g. Notation stating that the Good Neighbor Agreement and LCS policies shall be referred to for additional provisions governing the use and maintenance of the LCS property.

Action: Planning Staff recommended a one-year approval of the LCS Special Use Permit and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval and the ordinance for adoption on first reading, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, subject to the above-referenced revised conditions.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Loring Henderson, Director of LCS, asked the Planning Commission for approval of the Special Use Permit. He stated that they have gotten 23 signatures for the Good Neighbor Agreement, which would meet condition #1. The shelter generally agreed with Staff’s recommendations, except condition #3a regarding providing information on a new shelter location. He said that this condition treated LCS as a stand-alone site. He was also concerned about condition #4 which would mandate a full-time security guard. The LCS Board of Directors had already reviewed the addition of staff members to meet safety needs and have hired a part time person. He feels this is a decision that should be left up to the LCS Directors because of funding constraints. He suggested the wording be changed to half-time instead of full-time because that is what LCS could afford.

He gave a summary of the services that LCS provides and what they hope to achieve in the future.

He would also like the SUP approval changed to 5 years instead of the annual renewal because they have a small staff and it takes a lot of his time to renew annually.

Commissioner Harkins inquired if the shelter had programming requirements that would be imposed by some type of licensing agency and wanted to know if they operate under some sort of higher framework.

Mr. Henderson responded that the shelter does not operate under a regulatory framework, but that he has licensed social workers on his staff.

Commissioner Eichhorn wanted examples of providers and agencies that the shelter works closely with.

Mr. Henderson gave examples such as Housing Practitioners Panel, Interfaith Initiative, EKAN, Salvation Army, LEO Center, Heartland Medial Clinic, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Police Dept, SRS, Social Security, etc.

Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if the definition of a full-time security guard was 24 hours a day.

Commissioner Harris stated that a full-time security guard would be considered 40 hours a week.

Mr. Henderson stated that they had already hired a security guard to work 20 hours a week with a flexible schedule so that the occupants would not know when to expect the security.

Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to know if the Good Neighbor Agreement was defined by a radius?

Ms. Pool said that it was not defined, but she thought it would be the Oread Neighborhood.

Mr. Henderson said that they had developed post cards for the Downtown area that had the shelter phone number on it for people to contact them with any complaints or concerns. This postcard would be distributed on Massachusetts Street within the next week.

Commissioner Lawson stated that Mr. Henderson referenced the amount of time it takes to prepare annual SUP reports and wondered if he knew an estimate of how many staff hours might be involved.

Mr. Henderson replied no, that preparation of the application is intermixed with daily work, so he could not say for sure how many hours were spent on it annually.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Ray Urbanek, Police Captain, reported that the Police took 77 reports during 2005 and 99 reports in 2006. There were 307 calls for service in 2005 and 375 in 2006. He stated that as a member of the Police Department he had found the LCS staff very helpful in a assisting with problems.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked how long he thought each Police report took to write?

Mr. Urbanek replied that most routine reports take about 30-45 minutes to write.

Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Urbanek if the Police found it beneficial to have have the homeless population in one location, as opposed to spread around the City.

Mr. Urbanek stated that he has been in Lawrence for over 22 years and he thinks there are more homeless people now which generates a higher volume of Police activity in one area, but he can not think of advantages of either situation.

Commissioner Harkins asked Mr. Urbanek why he thought there was a dramatic increase in incidences at LCS.

Mr. Urbanek stated that the amount of people in the shelter might make a difference. He has seen a rise in Police calls in all areas of the City. In 2005 the entire City Police reports totaled 14,483 and in 2006 there were over 17,000.

Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if the presence of a security guard at the shelter would likely reduce the number of Police calls.

Mr. Urbanek felt that a security capacity may be able to eliminate some problems and would probably be helpful, especially in being a witness for when the Police would be dispatched to the location. Security guards are not authorized to do everything that Police officers are, though.

Ms. Julia Davidson, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, volunteered at LCS and never felt threatened by the staff or the guests. The downtown is the heart of the homeless population.

Ms. Laura Green, with the Community Cooperation Committee, lives at 941 Kentucky and works from her home. She can see the shelter from her window at home and thinks that the Police are called quite a bit because the shelter staff are doing their job by calling the Police. She warns against correlating crime with the shelter. She would like to see the SUP extended for at least 3 years.

Mr. Kent Hayes, serves on LCS Board, has been educated on issues of homelessness. The work that is being done at LCS is amazing. They have many dedicated volunteers and staff. The LCS is one of the most effective per dollar programs that he had seen over his entire career of working in community services. He felt that many of the problems caused Downtown are by the mentally ill living on the streets.

Ms. Brandy Sutton, neighbor of LCS, provided pictures to the Planning Commission showing evidence of issues at the shelter. She did not feel that LCS has met the 4 criteria for the SUP. She also questioned compliance with previous conditions, specifically those related with the Good Neighbor Agreement, site maintenance, and log of banned guests.

Mr. Bill Sims, referred to the pictures that Ms. Sutton showed and stated that the situation was worse than the pictures show. He stayed at the shelter for 2 years and he described it as hell. He felt that the loitering in the alley way and parking lot was not the responsibility of LCS, but rather the Police’s problem. He went on to say that the shelter has to be in someone’s neighborhood and nobody wants it in their neighborhood, but it has to be somewhere. Even though he stayed there and he thought it was hell he felt that the staff handled many bad situations well.

Mr. Don Huggins, put statistics that he had compiled from Police reports on the overhead for the Commissioners to see. He stated that calls to Police had increased due to the number of people being served increasing. The shelter continues to serve more people with the same number of staff and same location. The shelter keeps incidence logs even when Police calls are not made and some patrons are banned from the location. He went on to say that between 2005 and 2006 the criminal calls remained about the same at the shelter but that crime had gone up City wide, not just at the shelter.

Mr. Jeff Miller, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, wanted to show his support. He spent several days volunteering at the shelter and was very impressed with staff and all the people that he encountered.

Mr. Eric Eninger, expressed opposition to renewing the SUP. He questioned the number of people who stayed at the shelter in 2006, as he stayed at the shelter for 1 month and saw the same faces every night. He stated that the 27 jobs found for 15,000 people who stay at shelter should not impress the Commissioners.

Mr. Cary Strong, owner of Aimee’s coffeehouse, stated that he had never felt threatened and that the shelter had never affected his daily business. He felt that working together as a community works better and to stereotype everyone in the shelter as chronically homeless would be incorrect. The guests have hopes and dreams and they need LCS to help them achieve those. If the shelter was not there, then the people who stay there would be on the streets.

Mr. Phil Hemphill, with the Community Commission for Homelessness, lives across the street from shelter. He stated that the Good Neighbor Agreement was late and still did not contain items that he feels would have been effective. He owns 2 apartment buildings next to his house and the shelter does affect his apartment business when homeless people wander through the yard. He has had problems with trespassing, loitering, foul language, etc and feels these should be addressed in the Good Neighbor Agreement.

Commissioner Burress stated that the community needs the shelter, but it does not place a burden on the neighborhood and wanted to know how far away Mr. Hemphill felt the burden reached; 5 or more properties from LCS.

Mr. Hemphill thought that a few dozen properties were probably impacted by the shelter.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that it had been mentioned earlier that the City should take care of loitering in the parking lot and he wanted to know if the parking lot across the street was the City’s problem.

Mr. Hemphill stated that actions and consequences should come from the shelter. He also stated that the shelter had implemented a policy where no intoxicated guests are allowed at the shelter during the day and it cut the traffic through his yard by 50%.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Hemphill if he had notified the LCS staff of his concerns over the past year, and what the consequences were.

Mr. Hemphill said that he visited with the LCS staff 2-3 times and certain guests were banned from the shelter as a consequence.

Mr. David Lewis, Downtown business owner for 13 years and a resident of the 900 block of Rhode Island. He lives a block away from the Salvation Army and feels things have gotten better Downtown in the past 10 years. He contributed part of this improvement to the closing of a few liquor stores Downtown. He went on to say that empty storefronts, street improvements, and landlord upkeep were his main concerns about downtown. He is supportive of LCS and appreciates their work.

Erika O’Shea, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, volunteered at shelter and found the experience to be positive. She supported the shelter SUP.

Mr. Hubbard Collinsworth, stayed at the shelter for 2 years and also serves on the Community Commission on Homelessness. He would never want to see the shelter close and supports the SUP. He would also like to see the shelter secure a better location. He would like the Commission to help with this task.

Ms. Rhonda Miller, would like to see the SUP extended beyond 1 year. She takes meals to the shelter several times a month and has never felt uncomfortable while being there. Her experience with the shelter and Loring have been positive.

Mr. Bill Goyer, Student Senate Advisor at Bishop Seabury Academy, felt that if LCS did not have to worry about renewing the SUP every year they would be able to spend more time in addressing operational issues. He supports a three or five year approval.

Mr. Phil Anderson, 2404 Louisiana, felt that the shelter accomplished more with less money than any other community service program he had seen and supported the SUP.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Loring Henderson thanked everyone who spoke and thinks the community involvement should be there. He wanted to recognize that the community needed to work together and he was trying to be a better neighbor. He stated that they do address the parking lot and alley when there is loitering and that is where the security guard will help out. He tries to deal with neighborhood complaints promptly. No drinking is allowed in the daytime and there is a ban list. He agreed that the shelter was a burden on the community but Lawrence does not really have any “undesirable” areas to relocate to.

Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Henderson to respond to Ms. Sutton statement that the Good Neighborhood Agreement was late.

Mr. Henderson stated that the shelter held public forums at the library and had college students pass out fliers with dates and places of the meetings, but did not have a good turnout. Downtown Lawrence Inc. felt that they had not been involved so the shelter wanted to get their input and that process had delayed the agreement.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Henderson to comment on the statistics of 15,000 daytime guests and 7,000 nighttime guests and asked if that number was duplicated.

Mr. Henderson responded yes, that the numbers included some of the same people.

Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to know when the new rule of intoxicated guests not being allowed during the day was implemented.

Mr. Henderson replied that the rule was implemented in September 2006. He clarified that the guests are not banned long-term but they just cannot be there during the day if intoxicated.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Mr. Henderson would agree with Mr. Hemphill’s statement that complaints from him had gone down since the drinking ban took effect.

Mr. Henderson stated that he would like to think so.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the shelter were to receive full cooperation of the City, if it could be a goal to occupy a suitable facility in 3 years.

Mr. Henderson stated if he had full cooperation of the City, then 3 years was not an unrealistic goal.

Commissioner Burress wanted to know if there was a program that could control behavior a block away.

Mr. Henderson said his short answer was no. But that it could be more controlled if it were a strict 24 hour shelter. Currently, at night a guest has to be signed in and have no company. He felt that having a security guard would help. He went on to say that his first responsibility was to the guests that stay at the shelter and then to the neighbors. He wants to improve the environment of the shelter because it would help the people staying there.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Krebs summarized the issues that the Commission needed to discuss:

length of renewal time of the SUP
3 revisions to conditions in the Staff memo – remove condition of Good Neighborhood Agreement, change in language on 3a, change in language to half-time security person on 4

She also expressed that she felt that the shelter had been a good neighbor over the past year and she appreciated the efforts of the shelter.

Commissioner Eichhorn felt uncomfortable taking out the Good Neighbor Agreement. He thinks is will be easier to reference a year from now. He understands the staffing issues, but does not think it would be a bad idea to have a full time security guard.

Commissioner Harkins did not think it would be realistic to renew the SUP on a yearly basis and feels it would be a burden for the Planning Commission to hear it every year. He thinks that 3 years would be a more realistic goal, which would allow for the shelter to plan for the future. He went on to say that a 24 hour security guard would be nice, but that it is a matter of resources and he is comfortable with a half time security guard.

Commissioner Krebs agreed that renewing the SUP every 3 years was a good idea and she would be in support of that.

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that LCS applied for funding through the alcohol tax and were approved because they showed they had made improvements in just 1 year in the services they provided. He was encouraged that Mr. Hemphill had seen improvements since September. If the SUP renewal time frame was more than 1 year it would be difficult to revoke the SUP because there are not conditions that could be violated except not submitting annual reports. He also noted that with LINK and Jubille Café Downtown it could be a prime location.

Commissioner Erickson inquired about what it would take for the SUP to be heard sooner than 3 years if they were to be in violation,

Ms. Stogsdill stated that Commissioner Finkeldei had a good point because there was no specific way to bring the SUP back to Planning Commission unless there were violations of the site Plan or occupancy. It would revolve around a complaint to the City that Staff would evaluate and then be heard by City Commission for a revocation hearing. The process would be somewhat subjective and the City Commission would have to feel it was a substantial issue for a hearing.

Commissioner Burress asked if there was an alternative to putting the shelter somewhere other than a neighborhood.

Ms. Stogsdill thought that the Community Commission on Homelessness was working on issues regarding the shelter but there would be no perfect solution.

Commissioner Finkeldei thought that the full-time security guard would be nice for the shelter to have but that he does not think that the Planning Commission should dictate that.

Commissioner Burress felt that there were not enough resources to meet the needs of the facility and thought that the Planning Commission was the wrong body dealing with the wrong issues. He felt that whatever the Planning Commission decided, that someone would pay for it, so there would be no right direction to push the burden. He thought that pressure should be put on the applicant to use resources to treat externalities. Pressure should also be placed on government to do something. He supported the 3 year renewal.

Commissioner Harris asked Staff if it would be possible to add “respectful resident behavior” to the end of condition #6g.

Ms. Pool replied yes, the Good Neighbor Agreement included elements of behavior, blight, etc.

Commissioner Harkins stated that he did not feel it was realistic to have the shelter problems resolved in the next 12 months and that it was clear the applicant was looking for alternatives. He did not see how they could enhance the project in just 1 year and that the Commission should not burden the applicant with coming back every year. He would like to send the message to City Commission urging them to get serious about the community problem and look for resources to help the issue.

Commissioner Lawson agreed with Commissioner Harkins. He made a motion to approve the SUP for 3 years and referenced revised conditions #1-6g (strike #1, combine #2 & #3 and change the time frame to 3 years, and annual report for each year, change #4 to include half-time guard only, leave other conditions as is.)

Commissioner Jennings seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Henderson if he already created an annual report every year.

Mr. Henderson said he was comfortable doing an annual report each year. He asked how soon the annual report would need to be drafted.

Commissioner Lawson said that within the first quarter of each year was fine with him. He asked for a friendly amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Burress wanted to elaborate on the annual report. He said the point of the annual report would be to shift some responsibility. He would like to have the number and type of complaints from neighbors in the annual report as well.

Commissioner Jennings wanted to clarify that the annual report would be due in the first calendar quarter of each year.

Commissioner Harkins thought the idea of an annual report was a good idea but did not think it served a purpose. He was opposed to adding that as a provision.

Commissioner Harris requested that language be added to condition #6g regarding “neighborly behavior of the guests.”

Commissioner Haase apologized for his vote, but he has served on the Planning Commission for 6 years and this is the 4^th time he has heard an LCS request. He wanted to send a signal to City Commission about items that the Planning Commission should not be hearing. He stated that the City needs to come up with a comprehensive community effort. If the Planning Commission denied the SUP, there are at least 4 votes on City Commission that would send the SUP on. He disapproved of the location from a neighborhood standpoint, but approves of the work.

Commissioner Burress disagreed with Haase and felt there was no good location for the facility.

Commissioner Harkins amended to delete the annual report requirement.

Commissioner Jennings seconded.

Commissioner Burress felt there was gain from having the yearly report submitted to put some pressure on the applicant to think about it once a year.

Commissioner Harkins said the applicant did not need more pressure.

Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to amend the original motion to remove the annual report requirement.

Motion failed, 4-6, with Commissioners Harkins, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson in favor. Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, and Harris in opposition. Student Robb voting in opposition also.

Commissioner Haase stated that people coming and going was a problem with the shelter and thought that providing transportation to and from the shelter in an industrial area would be an alternative. He felt that alternatives do need to be explored for future success.

Commissioner Jennings extended the meeting 15 minutes.

Commissioner Lawson urged the City Commission to use whatever means or methods possible to allow the Community Shelter to improve greatly in the next 3 years. He felt the City needs a better shelter.

Commissioner Haase stated that the homeless shelter was not just a government problem and was stunned that private funding had not been more. He would like the City Commission to be more involved in organizing private fundraising campaigns.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to forward to the City Commission a recommendation of three-year approval for the LCS SUP and the ordinance for adoption on first reading based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, subject to the following revised conditions:

1. ~~Within 45 days of SUP approval by the City Commission, LCS shall submit a signed Good Neighbor Agreement with signatures of the LCS staff and at least 15 neighbors.~~ (condition has been met)

2. If the shelter remains in its current location within three years (2010), the following items shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to the three-year expiration date:

a. An application for SUP renewal.

b. Information supporting a new shelter location, including the viability of the new location, i.e. a funding plan.

3. Submittal of an annual report to the Planning Office within the first calendar quarter of each year for the next three years. The report shall include a log of police calls (with type of call noted), a log of guests who obtain jobs and housing, numbers of guests who utilize the day and nighttime services, and an update on the on-going commitment to communicate with the surrounding neighborhood and to address concerns of neighbors.

4. The addition of staff member(s) to meet guest, neighborhood, and public safety needs (refer to attached LCS report for specific staff recommendations). At a minimum, one half-time paid security guard, i.e. outside monitor, shall be hired. This new staff person shall be required to work a minimum of 20 hours per week. The maximum occupancy level shall not be exceeded with the addition of new staff members.

5. A signed Site Plan Performance Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Office.

6. The site plan shall be revised to show the following changes:

a. Inclusion of a note which states that, if the shelter remains in its current location by renewal time in three years, the items in conditions #2a, #2b, and #3 shall be submitted (the specific items shall be detailed on the site plan).

b. Revision of the UPR expiration date to reflect the new SUP expiration date and replacement of “UPR” with “SUP”.

c. Revision of the zoning data to note that the site’s new zoning designation is RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office) District.

e. Inclusion of the following note: “On February 15, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission approved the LCS Special Use Permit (DR-01-06-07), subject to conditions.”

g. Notation stating that the Good Neighbor Agreement and LCS policies shall be referred to for additional provisions governing the use and maintenance of the LCS property and neighborly behavior of the guests.

Motion carried 8-2, with Commissioners Eichhorn and Haase in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.