PC minutes 11/16/05
ITEM NO. 17: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER; 944 KENTUCKY (LAP)
UPR-09-06-05: A request to extend the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter; 944 Kentucky/214 W. 10th Street [supercedes Lawrence Open Shelter (UPR-01-01-03) and Community Drop-In Center (UPR-10-11-99)]. This property is located at the northeast corner of Kentucky and W. 10th Streets. Submitted by Loring Henderson, Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter with permission from James C. and Nancy R. Dunn, property owners of record.
Lisa Pool presented the item, a request to combine the UPRs for the site and to create a patio area between the eastern side of the building and the site’s parking area. This patio would be approximately the size of three parking spaces and would be outlined by planters on its eastern side. The request also includes the expansion within the building to accommodate an increase in occupancy from 28 to 33 people. The fire department has already this change.
Loring Henderson, Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter, made a request to allow the UPR to be permitted for five years.
Mr. Henderson presented the mission statement of the shelter, statement of the programs offered, and community benefit to the 260 people that were served. Mr. Henderson indicated that funding is a major concern in the areas of staffing, storage, and improvements necessary to handle some of the issues that have occurred on the property.
A letter from Phil Hemphill was read allowed which addressed shelter policies. Mr. Henderson addressed each issue mentioned in the letter. Another letter from Mr. Dunn was addressed in the same manner.
Comm. Burress addressed staff about the procedure for amending or revoking an approved UPR. Staff responded that the City Commission could establish a public hearing based upon initiative from the City Commission, Planning Commission, or City staff.
Comm. Harris asked Mr. Henderson if the submittal of an annual report to the Planning Department is required now. Mr. Henderson said the report was not required, but was currently being done.
Brandy Sutton expressed opposition to the UPR, stating that the use creates an objectionable influence for the neighborhood and that she has found trash, liquor bottles, etc… near her office building.
James Dunn, Oread Neighborhood Association, made a recommendation to extend the UPR for only one year. He also suggested the shelter has insufficient staffing levels, as well as loitering and occupancy issues.
Debbie Miller, Oread Neighborhood Association, presented a statement on behalf of the neighborhood association. Their recommendation was against the 5 year extension of the UPR. They suggested that plans need to be developed to address the needs of the facility in the future. There should also be a review of violations and subsequent consequences.
Peter Zacharias, Committee for Homeless, made a statement about the homeless. He said that the LCS has done a bad job and is a bad neighbor. His recommendation was for a one year extension with no occupancy increase.
Comm. Riordan asked if he had suggestions for improvement. Mr. Zacharias suggested that supervision and accountability would be an improvement.
Mr. Hemphill made a statement concerning the problems he has witnessed. He stated that he was tired of the excuses, and inquired why something has not been done. His major concern was the loitering of the patrons, and the subsequent problems. He presented a picture of the loitering. He wants the privileges of the patrons to be taken away if they break the rules.
Comm. Burress asked Mr. Hemphill if he was willing to accept the fact that, by taking away shelter services in the winter, people could freeze to death.
Mr. Hemphill responded that he has seen patrons fighting near his home. He wanted to know the success rate in patrons getting full-time jobs and permanent housing. Mr. Zacharias interjected that most cities have a cold weather rule, whereby unlimited entry to the shelter would be allowed below a certain temperature.
Mr. Henderson presented the rules of the shelter and the consequences of guests’ actions.
Comm. Erickson showed concern over the number of police calls numbers and asked if Mr. Henderson knew what the calls were about and who made them. A majority of the calls pertain to confrontation between guests. Some calls are made by the patrons and the staff. The Police Department has stated that they are thankful the staff and guests call them.
Comm. Riordan inquired about the definition for loitering. Staff responded that it was not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan stated that loitering was not permitted within 150 feet of the property. He would recommend a one-year UPR and would like to see provisions concerning success rate, medication guidelines, and new standards.
Comm. Burress inquired about the enforcement actions for not obeying the rules. Mr. Henderson responded that banning guests was the primary action taken. Comm. Burress also inquired about the success rate, service provided and if the shelter was a treatment facility. Mr. Henderson said the shelter is not a treatment facility and could not be one without the help of funds and an agency such as Bert Nash.
Ms. Sutton interjected that the previous UPR for the drop-in shelter stated that all activities should be in the building.
Action Taken
Motioned by Comm. Erickson for a one-year approval subject to conditions, seconded by Comm. Harris. Comm. Haase stated that he was against the motion and that the City needs to look at a better location, such as the west end of Burcham Park. Comm. Burress also supported a one-year approval.
Comm. Riordan said his recommendation would be for developing a list of standards to be developed within the next year. Comm. Burress didn’t understand the conditions and didn’t think they would make a difference. Comm. Riordan said the problems would be looked at over the next year with a reasonable set of standards. Comm. Riordan asked if Comm. Burress objected to the amendment. Comm. Burress said no.
Motion to approve a one-year extension with the following amended conditions:
Motion carried for a one-year extension with amended conditions, 9 – 1 (Haase opposed.)