Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Resolution 2005-2811111111111111111111111 11111 III 1111111 ISI 1111111111111 669087 02/24/2005 10;498 B1664 P762 M RLSDORF 1 of 3 R 0.00 D 0 00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Conunissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, in Glenwood Springs on, Monday, the 2nd day of August, 2004 A. D., there were present: John Martin Larry McCown Tresi Houpt Don DeFord Mildred Alsdorf Ed Green , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION No. 2005-28 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE NON -QUALIFYING APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) LOCATED AT 1413 COUNTY ROAD 107, GARFIELD COUNTY, OWNED BY DUANE AND ELIZABETH STEWART Parcel ID: 239322300319 WHEREAS, Duane And Elizabeth Stewart petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for an approval for the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Rooming and Boarding House; and WHEREAS, the property is legally described as being located in Section 22, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th PM, County of Garfield, State of Colorado and located within the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (ARRD) zone district and in Study Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 in an area designated as "Residential L 10+ AC/DU"; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 2" day of August, 2004 upon the question of whether the above-described request for an CUP - Rooming and Boarding House should be granted or granted with conditions, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 2" day of August, 2004 to make a final decision; and 111111111111111111111111111111 1111,11 IIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111,1II 1111111111111111 669087 02/24/2005 10:49A B1664 P763 M RLSDORF 2 of 3 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO WHEREAS, the Petitioner has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the proposed use as described in the accompanied application conforms to the description of the proposed use, a Rooming and Boarding House; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of facts: 1 Proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted, and all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. The proposed use, an addiction recovery and treatment facility, was found not to be in conformance with the proposed allowed use, a Rooming and Boarding House, in the A/R/RD zoning district. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based upon the findings of fact set above, the proposed CUP does not qualify based on a vote of 1 -for the proposed use and 2 -against the proposed use, due to the fact that the proposed use, an addiction recovery and treatment facility, was found not to be in conformance with the proposed definition of a Rooming and Boarding House, in the A/R/RD zoning district. Dated this day of ATT)~;; GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF 2005 G COMMISSIONERS GAAFIELD COUNTY, O c RADO Cler ofthe'Boatd l 'Chai • Upon motion duly made and seconded the forego following vote: NER HAIR 0 t F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER TRESI HOUPT , Nay , Nay Aye 11111 1111111 1111 11111 111 11111111 111 11111 1111111 669087 02/24/2005 10:498 B1664 P764 M RLSDORF 3 of 3 R 0.00 D 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) 1, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this _ day of , A.D. 20_ County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 3 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONVERT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT INTO A BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE. APPLICANT IS DUANE STEWART — JIM HARDCASTLE Jim Hardcastle, Carolyn Dahlgren, Larry Green, Duane and Elizabeth Stewart, and Robert Fergerson contractor and operator of the proposed use, were present. Carolyn reviewed the noticing requirements for the public hearing and determined they were timely and accurate. She advised the Board they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Exhibit A — Mail receipts; Exhibit B — Proof of Publication; Exhibit C — Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D — Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000; Exhibit E — application; Exhibit F — Staff memorandum; Exhibit G - Review Memo: Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District; Exhibit H — Letter representing adjacent land owners: Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. Exhibit I — Letter: Heather Baker Sullivan; Exhibit J - Letter:: Pamela Glassoff• Exhibit K - Letter: Richard and Alison Whittaker; Exhibit L - Letter: Sarah Baker; Exhibit M - Letter: Kate and Elliot Hayne; Exhibit N - Letter: R. B. Veit; Exhibit 0 — Book 0918 Page 059, Agreement and Protective Covenant; and Exhibit P — Book 589 Page 960, Exhibit Q — Community Residents of Red Hill, County Road 107 in opposition to the application. Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A — Q into the record. This is a request to convert a single family dwelling unit into a Boarding or Rooming House located at 1413 County Road 107 on 10.01 acres with access from State Highway 82 at State Highway 133. The applicant proposed to have 6 — 10 guests, 2 full time with on residing on site and 1 to 2 part time employees all of which will maintain a presence for support, direction and program management on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Applicant has not seen Exhibit Q — it was supplied to Attorney Larry Green. Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "Boarding or Rooming House" on a property located at 1413 County Road 107, Garfield County with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. This permit granted is for this specific use only as presently described. In the event any representations made in the application for which this permit is granted change and are no longer consistent with the representations in this application, the applicant shall be required to submit a new permit application to the county addressing the changes. 3. That the applicant obtains any and all future building permits and inspections consistent with the adopted rules and regulations of Garfield County for all development within the Boarding and Rooming House use. Any and all further expansion of the use will require an additional Conditional Use Permit be submitted through the Garfield County Building Department for approval. 4. A final engineered plan for an Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) with an appropriate capacity septic tank and corresponding appropriate size infiltration field for 6 bedrooms at double occupancy and all associated and supportive uses of a Rooming or Boarding House and those as stated in this application shall be installed and approved by the Building and Planning Department prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The Applicant shall improve the access road on the proposed property at the point of a gravel area at the hairpin turn (on the outside of the curve) adjacent to the pavement as per the requirements and specifications of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and obtain approval of said improvements prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 6. The Applicant shall construct a turnaround at the end of the driveway (at the dwelling unit) for emergency vehicles as per the requirements and specifications of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and obtain approval of said improvements prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 7. The Applicant shall submit a thorough traffic impact analysis which describes how the proposed use does not adversely affect the surrounding residential uses; said analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Garfield County Engineer prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 8. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary for normal use of the proposed use and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the conditional use, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. Applicant: Bob Fergerson — comes to this project a professional background in chemical dependency field and from a personal background as a recovering alcoholic. There is a public health crisis both nationally and in this community in substance abuse and a lack of resources to address the problem. Privately funded solutions are far between and in Colorado we are ranked p &' out of 50 states on the alcohol problem index according to Colorado Substance Abuse Study group and the ADA commission; and IP" ' in Marijuana. Colorado ranks 50P'hP in 50 states in per capita spending on education, prevention, and treatment for alcohol and substance abuse. This would be a privately funded resource for people to take up residence in early recovery — the condition being that we find a place where they can have sanctuary and seclusion of privacy. Among the many properties that were considered, this was chosen because of the privacy. Accountability, responsibility, privacy, time and for these reasons the lodge is a private rooming and boarding house for individuals who have chosen a happy and holistic lifestyle. Residents are volunteered commitments. They are motivated 30 days sobriety before admitted. Clients have made a commitment to live free from mood and alteration drugs. No criminals, no court order, no court orders, house manager living on premises at all times. This is not based on a right to do this, rather where is the right place to locate the resources we need to address this lifestyle. Bob said he contacted the neighbors and provided a narrative. He met with the residents, answered all the questions of the residents of Red Hill. This is about moving forward. Applicant: Larry Green — addressed the comments on the staff report. The neighbors have raised concerns and the perceived impacts to the properties. Mr. Fergerson addressed these and there will not be impacts as the neighbors have indicated. The sewer system was sized when built, no problem with enlarging the septic system nor making improvements to the access per the Carbondale Fire Department. Condition 7 — no problem; Larry also submitted the traffic impact analysis. He addressed the misconceptions. Public Testimony: David McConnahey — for the adjacent landowners commented on a short outline of points and introduced an engineer and asked clients to limit comments to 3 — 4 minutes. This is in the Red Hill area, and the terrain is rough, steep dirt road that doesn't meet county standards. Exhibit R— engineering report from Schmueser Gordon Meyer; Exhibit S — two additional letters from Ken and Donna Riley; and Exhibit T —letter from William Calvin and Susan Malby Chairman Martin entered Exhibits R, S, and T. David — this is residential area and noted in the staff report there are restrictive covenants. Relevant as here and the zoning district and covenants providing this is a residential neighborhood and the crutch of the complaints. The application is called a Lodge and is excluded from the definition under which this was submitted. They are trying to fit this into a narrow definition and asked the Board to look carefully at what is being proposed. He referenced the Black's Law Definition of a residence as being where someone lives. No one is denying the need for this. A residential area is not for this kind of facility. If you get past that hurdle, the criteria under SUP require adequate road, water and sewer. They agree with the condition and when you add all this up, it gives the Board reasons to deny this application. The well permit in the application states it is for a single family dwelling. He addressed the traffic concerns; and impacts. Photos of the dire condition of this road were shown. The access crosses her property and what will it take to make the improvements and he doesn't think they can obtain legal access. Greg Schrader from Schmueser, Gordon Meyer. — engineering report. Assessment on some of the points in the application such as the road issue, drainage and erosion, and access to BLM property. Safety was a major concern. Jack Pike — purchased his property in 1970; his concerns were the fallout rate in the first 30-days of recovery; potential for robbery; they generally smoke cigarettes to overcome the withdrawal and that was related to the potential for forest fires. Dick Veit — is one house removed from the location of this proposal. Issue with the planner, first of all the photo is very deceptive, it's taken sideways. Planner had a choice of accepting a valid Boarding House — some very weird Boarding House and referenced the zoning as being for a convalescent home. If the BOCC grants you would be making spot zoning as it belongs in a C/L district. Alex Swarm — most families are extended families and some in this area are 4 generations. Close residential area but in some ways not close due to spacing. Rick Brothers — two objections — he purchased a single family for houses — this facility doesn't qualify under that zoning. Mr. Fergerson is not licensed. Employees are not licensed. Facility of this nature would require licensing and qualified people, not recovering alcohols. Jane Baker Veit — owns property adjacent and a guest house. She has 6 daughters, 11 granddaughters. Concerns about the tenant character. No permanency here. 18 years as a psychiatry nurse. This is not the area for this kind of situation. She granted the landowners an easement and under the premise of a single family dwelling. Feel it should be turned down for safety and good of the area. Paula Taylor echoed the same things of the neighbors. Chris Broathard — adjacent landowner told of a car that was stolen and the amount of time it took for the sheriff to respond reiterating the concern for this type of use in the neighborhood. Jonnie Pike purchased her home 33 years ago. This type of use is not suitable for the character of the land; suggested they find another place for these people to recover. Kate Hayne — related to the Viets and she and her children stay in the guest house. The kids wander in the meadow and driveway and since this application is not for a locked facility, the people can walk around and makes her concerned. She reiterated the response time of the sheriff. This is a health care facility and these people need support and may be a need for response from a law enforcement agent in a timely fashion. She also asked if the Conditional Use Permit would resort back to residential if these people went broke or failed. Frank Alexander supported the proposal and gave a great character reference for Bob Fergerson stating he was a model neighbor. Dick Veit spoke against this facility being located in the neighborhood. Rick Broker — Mr. Fergerson will not reside there. He has employees there. No contract with a fitness center. Answers were not defined and he was concerned there was no smoking policy. Fire Department can't get to the property should a fire start. Jane Baker Viet — high end private paid clientele. Definition requested for this facility. Joseph Scott — supported Bob Fergerson and his efforts. He moved here in 1972, owned a home in Glenwood but spends most of his time in Denver. He spoke on Bobby's professional half. He is the Chairman of the Board of New Beginnings Treatment Center in Waverly, Minnesota — a 60 -bed unit and Chairman's council of the Betty Ford Center; and went on to give more credentials. He's known Bobby and he is a professional, very respected person in the field. Lucky to have Bobby Fergerson in the valley and unique and special to have Bobby in this valley. Bobby Fergerson uses licensed professionals for treatment. Charles Kennedy is a recovering alcohol and voiced fear is his reason for the drinking. He defined FEAR as Future Events Appearing Real. Ken Russo — Level 3 addiction's counselor who has worked for 14 years with Bob Fergerson — this is a man of high ethical standards and no reasons to think that any thing should be questioned. The public has voiced concern like robbery, strange people, and would like for people to step back that these are stigmatizing stereo types. Betty Ford was in a treatment center similar to one like this; men who have been to the moon and back and our current president have been treated for alcohol abuse. Supported the application. Ken addressed Commissioner's Houpt concern as to whether the neighborhood should be worried about a person going through this period in their lives i.e. smoking 5 packs of cigarettes per day and having a transit nature. He said a chemical dependent individual needs structure. There's a way in which good extended care needs specific things and their time is well scheduled. This is the opposite of what people have in their minds. Structure is the foundation of good treatment. Brad Osborne — Colorado West certified addiction counselor — this project has been thought out thoroughly. Outward Bound is a good project for our valley and our industry. Feel for the neighbors — the problem is that there is no perfect place and will not find one — accept it somewhere — this place is an awesome location and pointed out the Nimby attitude. David McConnahey — commended the noble goal and applauds Mr. Fergerson adding it's not a question of good or bad but does it belong here in this residential area. He reminded everyone that these people are not behind locked doors, and this is not a boarding house; rather it's a treatment house and should not be located in a residential neighbor. If the Board of County Commissioners approves this, it will end up in a law suit. Bobby Fergerson — apologized for being evasive and said he was just as concerned as others in this room. In his years of experience working in this field there's no connection with robbery and strange stereo types. This is a hot -button term — halfway house — we're talking about a recovery residence where healthy and holistic living where people come together for the common purpose of staying sober together another day. Structure is the key and tried to talk about this when he met with the neighbors. Most of you are renting out properties to tenants and there is an awful of non -owner occupied residences in this pristine valley. How do you enforce smoking rules and regulations that you have but he will meet or exceed the neighborhood standard. Smoking is a concern which is why he met with the Fire Marshall and talked about some remediation efforts to establish a buffer zone and Bobby said he will address this issue in a way that's consistent with the best interest and safety of the neighborhood. To address Jane's question about high end cliental — since 1995 Bobby has been in the field working at Hazelton Center and the cost is $20,000 for 30 days. Promises Malibu for two years and the cost of treatment is about the same; Crossroads Antigua and the cost for treatment is about $14,000 for 30 days; we will be getting our clients from these places. Most have completed 30 -days of documented sobriety and they need to be site stable, and he will have fully licensed professionals in this recovery residence. The participants need and time to stay sober and a place to do it. He addressed David McConnahey statement that the real issue is traffic — the real issue is we love what you're doing Bobby, please go do it somewhere else. Nimbys. There are kids and grandkids in this room and there were no concerns about driving on the road. Clearly what we're talking about is using an instrument like road safety, zoning, etc. to remove and turn away people whose lifestyles you find frightening and offensive; so we're going to take it a day at a time, turn the process over to you guys and trust that you'll put the greater common good before my needs or the neighbors. Larry Green commented that David McConnahey has indicated that in his view this is not a residential use and doesn't belong in this residential neighborhood; he doesn't believe this is the particular forum to discuss the state of the law and residential uses but it's pretty clear both in Colorado Case Law and cases decided elsewhere under the Federal Fair Housing Act and American's with Disabilities Act that this is determined to be a residential use and one that should be allowed in a residential zone district. The type of use that Bob proposes for this residence is in fact meets the definition of rooming and boarding house under your code; there will be a full time resident person living there full time, it's a residence and there will be 4 or more coming, staying there for compensation so I believe it meets the zoning code. This is a proper CUP application and that the County Commissioners Board can issue a CUP can impose conditions and believe the staff has addressed the conditions and asked the Board to approve. Further discussion was held with the adequacy of water, private easements, safety of the road etc. Larry Green said there is a document that was supplied by Mr. McConnahey that is an easement agreement between the Stewarts and three other property owners agreeing to talk about the maintenance of a road and as he reads the agreement it is dealing with maintenance and not an easement itself and doesn't present any limitation and talks about how the costs are to be shared. David McConnahey does not share the same opinion. It's an exhibit, a grant of easement for 20 foot access; it's silent as to the scope of the access as too whether it's residential or something else but it was recorded after the restrictive covenants that say residential and as Ms. Baker -Viet testified that was her intent. We believe the court would find it was limited to residential use. Jim Hardcastle said in terms of the road review as referred in this use, there was no particular comment and posed the impact when he drove up there. In terms of the fire buffer zone, the staff hasn't seen anything yet. In terms of the conditional use approval itself, the title does follow the title of the land and not necessarily to just the owner. There could be a use in the future similar to this but it must fall within the confine and perimeters of the CUP as it would be approved and presented. Someone indicated engineering for the road and this review would be seen by an outside consultant and not just necessarily an internal approval that wouldn't be shared with anyone else. Carolyn asked if the Commissioners were to approve this, they should be prepared to make a specific finding as to rooming and boarding to include the use as described. A motion was made by Commissioner Houpt and seconded by Commissioner McCown to close the public hearing; motion carried. Commissioner Houpt made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a boarding and rooming house for the Duane and Elizabeth Stewart with conditions provided by staff and added a condition addressing the fire buffer zone, thinks this is important that this request be taken seriously and that particular condition be fulfilled with the help of the Carbondale and Rural Fire District; there is a paragraph in the staff report as a condition that I would like to include as a condition found on page 2 there will be no allowed facilities where processing and management of detoxification, crisis intervention, incarceration or corrections and all residents required by the applicant to undergo a background check and random drug and alcohol testing to maintain status within the voluntary program. This is perhaps redundant because we're talking about a boarding house but in light of the concerns that came forward to day, I want to include those. Don't we often with our CUP and SUP ask for a 6 - month review to make sure? Chairman Martin - one year. Commissioner Houpt added a condition that would allow for a one-year review for the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner McCown seconded for discussion. Executive Session - Legal Advice on the Motion A motion was made by Commissioner McCown to go into a brief executive session to obtain legal advice of the motion made by Commissioner Houpt. Commissioner Houpt seconded; motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown to come out of executive session; Commissioner Houpt seconded; motion carried. The motion on the table. Call for the question: In favor - Houpt - aye; Opposed - McCown; Opposed - Martin. Chairman Martin - my finding is that I don't feel that the definition of boarding house is met because the use changes to more of a controlled environment above and beyond what a boarding house would allow. It's a fantastic project but unfortunately under this I think a zone text amendment is what really needs to be done to change that particular use and go forward on that change and then have the zone text amendment meeting the definition of boarding house or treatment facility. Commissioner McCown concurred primarily that we do need and not faulting applicant for anything that they've done, we just need a zone text amendment to better identify this use. I think we found ourselves today trying to put a square peg into a round hole and I just don't think it fits, so I would encourage your program Mr. Fergerson, it is absolutely noting of a personal nature Commissioner Houpt and I obviously felt as if there was a fit simply because what I heard was that the people who would be against your program it is a simply land use decision. staying at the boarding house, rooming house would be people who had already gone through programs for sobriety and for people who wanted to stay in a particular setting for a period of time. And I thought that fit, but I understands the other view as well. ;Chairman Martin said that was a decision of the Board because it does not meet the definition of boarding house because it oes beyond the scope; we feel that a zone text amendment is necessary to actual use that as a boarding house. It's a fantastic 24 proposal. /��.i -G� cum Gz GAS r -e-7 fa_/216 //c -7-(-0e.