HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood
Services
Planning & Development Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 2, 2022
To: Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kai Kleer, City Planner
Re: Staff Report Clarifying Questions – Castle Ridge Group Home, PDP210012
__________________________________________________________________
Clarifying Questions & Staff Responses
The following three clarifying questions were asked by Julie Stackhouse of the Planning & Zoning
Commission:
1. Packet page 8 Indicates that “the project includes an approved (emphasis added) reasonable
accommodation request which grants relief from 3.8(A) to increase maximum permissible residents
from 8 to 16. My question: who was the approver of this request?
o Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, approved
the request pursuant to Land Use Code Division 2.19.
2. Packet page 8, section 2, includes the following statement: If the scope of service goes beyond these
limits and requires skilled nursing care, residents will be required to move off-site in a timely manner.
However, page 12 indicates that: the group home is also proposing to offer hospice care which will
require a skilled nurse. These statements, on their face, seem inconsistent. Please explain and
indicate the maximum number of hospice care patients that will be admitted and address the
associated parking considerations for the maximum number of additional workers.
o Hospice care staff includes a combination of skilled nursing and non-skilled services. The
service will be contracted through a third party and is meant to complement the care of
full-time group home staff. It’s expected that visits from hospice care staff (e.g., registered
nurse, certified nursing assistant, or clergy) could range from 15 minutes to hours
depending on the stage of health the patient is in. It is unlikely that all types of staff would
be present at once, however, some overlap may exist.
o Concerning the maximum number of hospice care patients, the applicant indicates that a
maximum of four hospice patients may be possible, however, the number is largely
variable due to the unpredictability of death.
3. Packet page 12, condition 1 states: To the extent possible, deliveries and short-term visits shall be
limited to available space within the driveway and street frontage that shares a common boundary
with 636 Castle Ridge Drive. Please explain how “to the extent possible” should be interpreted, how
Packet pg. 1
enforcement will occur, and what is expected on days when the group home hosts holiday or special
events. Please also provide information on the previous experience of the owners in addressing traffic
considerations with a 16- person memory/hospice care facility.
o ‘To the extent possible’ is typically used when there are variables that cannot be controlled by
an all-encompassing rule or set of rules. The goal is to reduce the impacts of the group home
on the neighborhood and the use of the phrase ‘to the extent possible’ allows for some flexibility
due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., those visits that are unexpected or out of the ordinary).
o Regarding enforcement, it is the expectation that the applicant understands the limits of the
condition and works to maintain the limited scope of operations. If a complaint were filed by a
community member, City Zoning staff will start an investigation into the allegations of the
complaint. If a violation is found corrective action by the owner will be required within a certain
time period or would be subject to Land Use Code Section 2.14.4 - Criminal and Civil Liabilities;
Penalties.
o With holidays or special events, the applicant has indicated that an effort would be made to
host events off-site during good weather and to stagger in-home events to reduce the number
of visitors at any one time. This can certainly be considered as an additional condition imposed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission to more strictly limit large gatherings that would impact
on and off-street parking.
o Regarding the applicant’s previous experience addressing traffic, staff will ask that they cover
this in their presentation at the March 23, 2022, Regular Meeting.
Packet pg. 2
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 15, 2022
To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers
Thru: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Planning Development and Transportation Director
From: Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Director
Re: Overview of the Reasonable Accommodation Process
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of and context for the Reasonable
Accommodation process adopted by City Council in 2017, to describe how this process
has been implemented since its inception, and to discuss policy alignment with City
policies and strategic objectives. This information is being provided in response to a
Councilmember request following a reasonable accommodation determination in 2021,
and due to public contacts with Council regarding a group home project currently in the
development review process that includes a reasonable accommodation determination.
Background
This memorandum describes the impetus for the creation of the process, how the
process works, some history and context regarding the application of the process, and
information about alignment with City policies and strategic objectives. This
memorandum does not provide a legal analysis of the basis for the City’s regulations, or
evaluate the legal issues involved with potential modifications to the regulations. The
City Attorney’s office will address these legal considerations separately.
In 2016 the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a joint statement indicating that federal
laws take precedence over any local zoning ordinances that do not provide reasonable
accommodations to protected classes of people, including people with disabilities. The
joint statement clarifies that reasonable accommodation provisions of the federal Fair
Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require the City to
make reasonable accommodations to its zoning regulations when necessary to afford
disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing of their choosing on the
same basis as persons without disabilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CBA2E4E-89D4-47C9-B0D6-E92FFCFD1367
Packet pg. 3
At the time of the joint statement the City did not have a formal procedure for evaluating
these types of reasonable accommodations and was faced with a request for a
reasonable accommodation without a codified review process. In 2017 the City adopted
its reasonable accommodation process to create a formal procedure to allow people
with disabilities to request the waiver or modification of City zoning laws, policies, or
practices.
Review Process
Land Use Code (LUC) Division 2.19 sets forth the City’s reasonable accommodation
process. Under this process, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) Director reviews and decides reasonable accommodation requests. The
reasonable accommodation review process is not open to the public for input and the
Code does not require public outreach or a public hearing. The process was purposely
designed to protect the privacy of individuals with disabilities and to avoid the possibility
that discriminatory public comments might influence or be attributed to the decision
maker.
It is important to note that the result of a reasonable accommodation determination is
not based on a common definition of “reasonableness” as it may be perceived by
neighbors or members of the public; rather, the accommodation is determined to be
reasonable if it meets the specific criteria established in the LUC. In order to grant a
reasonable accommodation request, the CDNS Director must find:
The user of the property at issue has a disability.
Granting the request is necessary to make specific housing available to a person
with a disability.
Granting the request would not impose an undue financial or administrative
burden on the City.
Granting the request would not require a fundamental alteration in the n ature of a
land use code provision.
As a matter of practice, when a request is received the CDNS Director assembles a
small group of staff who are subject matter experts in the particular regulation under
consideration, including a representative from the City Attorney’s Office. This group
reviews information submitted by the applicant, asks for additional details or verification
as necessary, and entertains the option to hold an interactive meeting with the
applicant’s representatives to ask questions and collect any additional information
needed to make a decision. The CDNS Director may impose conditions of approval to
ensure the accommodation granted meets the criteria.
At the conclusion of the process, the CDNS Director issues a letter stating the decision
on the request and the basis for that decision according to the LUC criteria. The
applicant for a reasonable accommodation is the only party that may appeal a City
reasonable accommodation decision, and appeals are heard by the City Manager or
their designee.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CBA2E4E-89D4-47C9-B0D6-E92FFCFD1367
Packet pg. 4
History and Context
Since its inception, the CDNS Director has issued a total of 9 reasonable
accommodations, in each of the following years:
2017: 1
2018: 0
2019: 3
2020: 1
2021: 4
As of the writing of this memorandum, no formal challenges have been made to the
City’s reasonable accommodation procedures either in the form of an appeal of a
Director decision or through the filing of a lawsuit related to the LUC provisions . In the
majority of cases, City staff do not receive complaints from neighbors near the recipient
of a reasonable accommodation. In some instances when the accommodation relates to
a facility such as a group home or sober living facility, neighbors will contact staff when
it comes to their attention that a facility is moving into a residential building. In these
cases, neighbors will sometimes express frustration that the reasonable
accommodation process does not include public notification or an opportunity for the
public to comment on the request, influence the process or appeal the decision.
Policy Alignment
In addition to meeting the legal requirements of the FHA and ADA, the City’s reasonable
accommodation process helps to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion goals outlined
in the adopted 2020 Strategic Plan, City Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan. The
following objectives and policies relate to issues of access, equity, and specialized
housing needs that are relevant to the reasonable accommodation process:
Strategic Objective NLSH 1.4: “Advance equity for all, leading with race, so that a
person’s identity or identities is not a predictor of outcomes.”
City Plan Policy LIV 6.1 - BASIC ACCESS: “Support construction of housing
units with practical features that provide access and functionality for people of all
ages and widely varying mobilities.”
City Plan Policy LIV 6.2 - SPECIALIZED HOUSING NEEDS: “Plan for
populations who have specialized housing needs. Integrate residential-care and
treatment facilities, shelters, permanent supportive housing, group homes and
senior housing throughout the GMA in areas that are well served by amenities
and public transportation.”
City Plan Policy LIV 7.1 - ACCEPTANCE, INCLUSION AND RESPECT: “Identify
opportunities to promote acceptance, inclusion and respect for diversity.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CBA2E4E-89D4-47C9-B0D6-E92FFCFD1367
Packet pg. 5
Discourage all forms of discrimination, in addition to the specific characteristics
that are protected by law.”
City Plan Policy LIV 7.4 - EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS: “Include considerations
for equity in decision making processes across the City organization to ensure
that the benefits and/or burdens of City actions or investments are shared fairly
and do not disproportionately affect a particular group or geographic location
over others.”
Housing Strategic Plan Strategy 2: “Promote inclusivity, housing diversity, and
affordability as community values
Community engagement should address structural racism, counter myths
related to affordable housing and density, prioritize storytelling and be
culturally appropriate.”
Housing Strategic Plan Strategy 3: “Implement the 2020 Analysis of Fair Housing
Choice Action Steps
This HUD-required document analyzes fair housing (the intersection of
civil rights and housing) challenges for protected class populations in Fort
Collins.”
The purpose of the reasonable accommodation process is to make housing
choices available to people with disabilities when existing zoning regulations
would otherwise prevent them from living in a particular location.
For example, a person with a mental health related disability may not be able to
live in a single-family house in a neighborhood if zoning regulations prevent
certain types of support from being made available in their home, or a person
with a physical disability may not be able to live in a multifamily apartment
building if zoning regulations would prevent ramps or structures for access to
their home.
These are the types of cases that could be considered for reasonable
accommodations and evaluated against the LUC criteria.
If granted, a reasonable accommodation may allow these individuals to live in the
same neighborhood and with a comparable quality of life to individuals without
these disabilities.
A tension does exist between the legal and ethical imperative to provide equal housing
access to individuals with disabilities and the City’s goals to provide transparent
processes and empower neighbors to resolve problems.
Strategic Objective NLSH 1.5: “Enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods,
empower neighbors to solve problems, and foster respectful relations.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CBA2E4E-89D4-47C9-B0D6-E92FFCFD1367
Packet pg. 6
For neighbors who find out about a reasonable accommodation process in their
neighborhood after the fact, it can feel like their quality of life is being impacted
without an opportunity to provide input.
This can leave these neighbors feeling disempowered rather than empowered.
In evaluating the potential polarity between these two objectives, an important
consideration is that the FHA, ADA, and the City’s reasonable accommodation
process are all designed to provide greater consideration for those who may be
marginalized or underrepresented in regulatory processes in order to provide
greater equity in outcomes.
Next Steps
If Council desires additional information or to discuss alternatives to the current process,
options might include a work session, executive session, or additional staff
correspondence. Councilmembers can discuss their preference with the City Manager,
who will bring these requests forward to the Leadership Planning Team.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CBA2E4E-89D4-47C9-B0D6-E92FFCFD1367
Packet pg. 7
City of Fort Collins P&Z BoardType 2 Review for proposed group home at 636 Castle Ridge Ct.Neighborhood ResponseITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 8
RepresentationKurt/Laurie Johnson612 Castle Ridge CtTracey Stefanon/Ken PatrickLily/Weston Patrick642 Castle Ridge CtJesus Martin/Angie Lee637 Castle Ridge CtSteve/Kathy Chacho631 Castle Ridge CtEd/Joann Jaeger643 Castle Ridge CtSteve/Josh Sunderman607 Castle Ridge CtLawrence Mauch/Karen Kotecki625 Castle Ridge CtTom/Debbie Graff624 Castle Ridge CtTony/Sarah Doing5206 Castle Ridge PlBrad Sisson/Amanda Bartels600 Castle Ridge CtMichael Leuzze5225 Castle Ridge PlDan Clawson5219 Castle Ridge PlTroy/Carrie Tafoya5213 Castle Ridge PlSteve/Beth Williams5301 Highcastle CtDouglas/Katie Salter613 Castle Ridge CtBarbara Schwerin601 Castle Ridge CtGregg/Stacy Lesartre619 Castle Ridge CtITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 9
Details - speakers•Overview and introduction – land use alterations•Kurt Johnson – 612 Castle Ridge Ct•On-street parking and traffic •Tracey Stefanon – 642 Castle Ridge Ct•Character•Jesus Martin – 637 Castle Ridge Ct•Legal issues•Harmon Zuckerman, Esq.•Summary•Kurt Johnson – 612 Castle Ridge CtITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 10
Reasonable Accommodation – no fundamental alterations (2.19)•The Reasonable Accommodation process: denyif fundamental alterations to a Land Use Code provision.•RA conditioned to 3 staff, now there is 4-5 staff per operational plan (live in administrator(s) added) + contractorsA “Large Group Care Facility” in a “Low Density Residential” Neighborhood is a “fundamental alteration” of the Land Use Code.ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 11
Intensity Impact•16 vs. 8 residents – doubling the impact from previously-approved group homes•Group homes a matter of statewide concern –up to8 residents•Originally stated “no neighborhood opposition” – no attempt at collaboration•Canvass of Fort Collins memory care capacity – 21% vacancy rate•Is there a special circumstance that lessens the impact of 16 residents?•Extra-wide street with ample parking on both sides (like Seneca St)? No •Buffering via long private drive/no adjacent neighbors? No•Other/large acreage? No, unlike Eagles Nest Assisted Living (8 residents on 3.3 acres)•In fact, nothing unique to justify increased activity•ALL impact will be felt by the surrounding neighborhood•If >8 does not violate code, what is the limit? Is there a limit? Why wouldn’t Eagles Nest expand?Seneca StITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 12
Section 3.8.6 of Fort Collins specifically defines “Large Group Care Facility”•Maximum number of residents for “Large Group Care Facilities” range from 6 - 15 or 6 – 20 depending on zone•Even for a “Large Group Care Facility” 16 residents is notallowed for: •Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N), Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M), Manufacturing Housing District (M-H), River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R)•> 15 residents is only allowed in: •CommercialDistricts (D, C-S, C-C-N, N-C, C-G, C-C, C-L, C-C-R)•Neighborhood Conservation BufferDistricts(N-C-B)•High & Medium Density Mixed-Use Districts (M-M-N, H-M-N)A “Large Group Care Facility” are envisioned in Commercial & Higher Density DistrictsITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 13
Land Use Code Requirements for Exceeding the Maximum Number of Residents (3.8.6)•Note: by the Land Use Code this is only allowed for “Large Group Care Facility”•Must take into account:•Traffic Impact•Parking•“Architecturally” and “Size & Scale” Compatible with Character of areaTraffic, Parking, Size and Scale must be taken into account by the “Decision Maker”ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 14
“Consistent with the PUD master plan”Section 2.4.2 (H)•“The project development plan shall be consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD Overlay”•Variance granted to PUD to allow narrow street width•Based on 3+ car garages, larger lot size, assumption of minimal parking needs•Change in use violates the conditions by which the variance was granted•Variance granted to 636 Castle Ridge to allow 5’ side setbacks where 12’ is required•Change in use, with added privacy concerns, violates the conditions by which the variance was grantedITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 15
Architecture – character of the area•Dormitory style with all 16 residents on single floor•Note basement is NOT walkout, shouldn’t be considered in useable square footage•Intensity leads to uniform row of bedroom windows, especially on north side (current plan is larger windows than state requires)•North side of facility less than 5ft from property line•Screening issues, egress issues•Propose to eliminate both two car garages (eliminating 4 parking spaces)ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 16
636 Castle Ridge CtTraffic and ParkingITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 17
Overview of Area•Three court area, one entrance and one exit off of High Castle Drive•Private road maintained by the HOA at the cost via special assessment paid by the homeowners •No snow removal•Off-street parking on Highcastle Drive is 1,000-1,500 feet away ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 18
Satellite Image with Driveways•Street parking is very limited outside driveways and fire hydrant areas •Visitors likely to park in front of and across the street from subject property•17 other residences with visitors, deliveries, services, maintenance, and potential need for emergency servicesITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 19
Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Reference Manual•Use will likely generate 7-10 parked cars•Assume high end of range due to specific use•City survey of existing group home parking results in need for 7-14 parking spaces for 16-bed group home•Lowest # off-street parking in FC for double residentsITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 20
Impact of Traffic and Parking•NORMALLY to have cars parked on both sides•SAFETY IMPACTS for facility residents and other homeowners•SIGNIFICANT number of emergency response calls anticipatedITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 21
10 Additional Cars Parked on the Street (mockup)ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 22
Traffic, Parking and Safety•PFA fire lane requirement – first 3 rounds of review•PFA removed requirement before round 4 after applicant:•Termed the Change of Use to be a “remodel project”•Represented parking on both sides of the street as unusual and a “worst case scenario”•Made legal threat•PFA withdrawal of requirement was based on FALSE information •Operational plan was not submitted at this timeITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 23
Parking and presented alternate options10+ cars would just be for that ONE residence - 17 other residencesProposed parking mitigation (Highcastle or Boardwalk (1000 to 1500 feet away) – NOT REALISTIC especially in winter-Only potentially enforceable to the 5 staff -ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 24
Colorado Regulations -- Assisted Living and HospiceApplicant’s statements are inconsistent with law:•“can spread out traffic impacts and prevent large clusters of visitors at any one time”•“average expected one visitor per client per week…generally one hour or less“CCR 1011-1 Chapter 7, section 13.1, A4 for Assisted Living•Residents’ may “have visitors at any time”CCR 1011-1 Chapter 21 for hospice •“Visiting hours shall be flexible”•Family may “remain with the patient overnight”•“Interdisciplinary team” of staff requiredITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 25
Visitation•Disconnect between Colorado Code for resident RIGHTS and the operational plan•Disconnect between personal/professional experience of expected visitation and the operational plan•End of life•Hospice ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 26
Traffic, Parking and Safety Concerns Summary•Applicant significantly understated the traffic and parking needs•Liability•Intensity – number of residents/visitors/support increases liability risk for surrounding properties•School•Significant number of school kids walking to-from schoolITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 27
636 Castle Ridge CtChange in the character of the neighborhoodITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 28
What kids can do now and how the street looks like with forecasted traffic/parkingTraffic due to activity of applicant636 Castle RidgeITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 29
Operational Plan Issues – completed aftertraffic studyUnderstated – and how to enforce an impact limit?•Late additions to Operational Plan (e.g., live-in administrators, van/bus) not studied•Now 5 staff and van/bus vehicle impact•Staff shifts (3) unlikely to use driveway, carpooling/biking unlikely to materialize, no handicapped spaces?•Patient visitation rights not considered•Hospice creates more visitation than stated –multiple providersin FC•Van/bus to use one of three minimum size spaces?•Housekeeping – 4hrs/wk and Medical – 4hrs every other week?•Events on holidays not fully conditioned•Coordinating in-demand services to specific times unrealistic•Clergy is not rare, medical transports understated•Realistic view is in-line with ITE/city dataITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 30
636 Castle Ridge CtLegal issuesITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 31
636 Castle Ridge CtRequested Conditions and SummaryITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 32
Requested Conditions•Letter sent had requested conditions in conjunction with intensity limitation•Assumed Commission had authority to limit number of residents•Understanding that may not be the case – project at 16 residents should be denied•Multiple Land Use Code violations•Staff suggested conditions unrealistic•As proposed, lowest parking for double the residents per city data•Plans never correctITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 33
Summary•New exceptions built on top of existing exceptions (street width, setbacks, fire lane, parking, …)•Mayor: “If we don’t like the plan, we should work on changing the plan, (rather than) constantly be making exceptions to plans.” (Coloradoan, 1/19/22, re: Sams Club gas station)•Note that all operational mitigation efforts are voluntary, would need stronger enforcement mechanism•Unlikely to be realized best case, if realizable at all – neighbors have to monitor/report•Impact already is greater than submitted – also what if more services added?•What happens when change of ownership or operational head? A: New plan.•Impact is in perpetuity, must plan for worst case•If such intensity is approved here, then it will need to be approved anywhere – bad precedent•By definition, this is a fundamental alteration which needs to be further conditioned or deniedITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 34
636 Castle Ridge CtBackupITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 35
Requested Conditions•Limit residents to 8 (helps parking, can keep a garage)•Limit parking to in front of property/in driveway only•No van/bus parking in driveway or on street – pickup/drop-off only•Require that HOA – ACC stipulations be met related to:•Windows/Trim•Gates/Landscaping/lighting•Privacy/Character•Submit copy of state operating license to HOA•Yearly submittal to HOAof required certificate of inspection for water supply backflow preventer•Group home pay ½ of PUD road maintenance•South side picture windows continuously incorrect on plans – both need screening•Six trash bins for pickup to be placed in front of group home property only (not neighbor property). Must put back in place by end of trash pickup day.ITEM 2, NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE PRESENTATIONPacket pg. 36
To: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission
Development Review Comments
Delivery via electronic mail at devreviewcomments@fc.gov
Re: 636 Castle Ridge Ct. Group Home Project
Overview
As you are aware, the project at 636 Castle Ridge Court proposes 16 residents for a memory care facility
within an R-1 zone. If approved, this would fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood and
threaten our health and safety in violation of the Land Use Code.
The applicant has received a reasonable accommodation to allow 16 residents, but the proposed project
must still pass a Type 2 Review. A key basis for such passage is the demonstration of “community need”
–although a canvassing of Fort Collins memory care facilities shows that the current vacancy rate is 21%
(see attached spreadsheet for data), and there are three new facilities in the planning phase.
Type 2 review requires that the Commission ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A memory care facility
of the size proposed is fundamentally incompatible. The applicant has asked that you allow an
unprecedented doubling of the Land Use Code limit for group homes. We request that you deny this
application or significantly limit the intensity of the use proposed. Eight is enough.
True, the subject property is a big house. But it is not in a location that is conducive to the intensity being
proposed. Castle Ridge Court is a narrow, private street that was approved as part of an 18-unit PUD with
a variance to allow the street’s substandard width (see attached document). Also, the house itself
received a variance for setbacks to 5’ (also referenced below), where all other properties in the PUD have
12’ setbacks – this means that some mitigation efforts that could have been required would be ineffective
as they relate to the subject property.
Other group homes in similar neighborhoods have not attempted to push the envelope so hard when it
comes to intensity. For example, the group home located on Seneca Street, which is a wide secondary
street with parking on each side, is an 8-resident facility. Eagles Nest Assisted Living, for another example,
has 8 residents and is on 3.3 acres.
If the Commission approves the current application at 16 residents, what is to stop other similarly situated
group homes from applying for expansion? This is not a precedent that makes sense to set in Fort Collins
today. The Land Use Code should not be interpreted to allow itself to be stretched to the point where no
real limit on intensity exists.
Land Use Code Issues
Section 3.8.6
This section limits the number of residents for different classes of group homes. A group home
with 16 residents is defined as a “large group care facility” (which category is for group homes
with 15 or more residents). Large group care facilities not only are prohibited in the R-1 zone.
They are also not allowed in medium density, manufacturing housing, and the downtown river
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 37
redevelopment districts. These facilities actually require an even higher classification and are
only allowed in commercial districts, neighborhood conservation buffer districts, or high and
medium density mixed use districts.
Section 2.19
The reasonable accommodation process suggests denial of requests which require a fundamental
alteration in the nature of a land use code provision. Here, allowing a “large group care facility”
in the R-1 district, which district specifically prohibits such a use, is a clear example of a land use
code provision which would be violated by the approval of this project. Staff erred in granting the
reasonable accommodation, and it is up to the Commission to either deny this application or
significantly limit the intensity of the use proposed.
Section 2.4.2
This section specifically states that the “project development plan shall be consistent with the
overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD overlay”. There are
specific items that are decidedly inconsistent:
1. The variance that Miramont PUD received allowing Castle Ridge Court to be of
substandard street width was predicated on low traffic and parking needs and all houses
having 3+ car garages. This project would be inconsistent with the PUD as-approved.
2. The Castle Ridge PUD master plan (see attached document) provides for 18 single-family
residential houses and requires 12’ side setbacks for each house for privacy and
separation. But 636 Castle Ridge Court was granted a variance allowing for 5’ setbacks.
As such, and as a 16-person memory care facility with on-site staff, frequent deliveries,
and the other accoutrements of a large group home use, the project would be
inconsistent with the PUD.
Architecture Issues
The project proposes a one-level dormitory-style facility housing 16 residents, plus 3 full-time staff, plus
live in administrator(s), plus support and services. Because the basement is not a walkout, it cannot be
used as living area, so the actual living area is proposed to be 6,400 square feet. This intensity explains
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 38
the proposed uniform rows of windows, especially on the north side, which seems institutional and not
residential in character and is markedly different from any other house in the PUD. And despite the 5’
setback variance previously mentioned, the north side setback actually measures out as less than that,
and it has a retaining wall due to elevation difference. This makes the alleviation of privacy issues quite a
challenge – a challenge which at a lower intensity would not be a problem.
Traffic and Parking
The Castle Ridge PUD is a three cul-de-sac design with a single entrance/exit off of Highcastle Drive. Castle
Ridge Court is a private street maintained by the HOA at the expense of the homeowners, paid by special
assessment shared equally per house. The proposed facility would contribute to much more street wear
and tear, but the application makes no offer to pay a greater share of the maintenance cost.
The planning staff memo contains a proposed condition requiring facility employees to park along
Highcastle Drive past Werner Elementary or on E. Boardwalk to alleviate what would be a major parking
problem caused by the group care facility. There is only parking on Highcastle at the south end of the
street past Werner Elementary, however, and this is nearly a quarter-mile away. The parking on E.
Boardwalk is nearly a fifth of mile away. It seems unlikely that this condition will be met or enforced,
resulting in dangerous overparking on Castle Ridge Court.
The below satellite image shows how limited the parking is in Miramont after taking into account
driveways, fire hydrants, etc. (shown in yellow and red):
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 39
Per the Institute of Traffic Engineers, or ITE, Manual (relevant excerpt attached), parking requirements for
assisted living are made in term of percentile. Memory care would appropriately fall into the 50-85th
percentile data, because it is a subcategory of assisted living with a more intense service requirement (due
to the health conditions of folks who are closer to end of life). This percentile range results in a parking
need of 7-10 spaces during business hours.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 40
This data contradicts the applicant’s claims of impact. In a response to the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA)
concerning a potential need for a fire lane, the applicant called cars parking on both sides of the street a
“worst case scenario” with a “low probability” of occurring. Quite the contrary, given the limited parking
available. In fact, cars parking on both sides of the street is almost a certainty. And with such a narrow
street, this would make emergency vehicle access a crapshoot, which is a risk no one – and no neighbor –
should be asked to take.
Operational Plan Issues
The applicant’s operational plan significantly understates the impact of the proposed project and
therefore proposes inadequate mitigation measures. For example, the plan speaks to limiting visiting
hours. However, Colorado Code of Regulations for Assisted Living, CCR 1011-1 Chapter 7 (attached)
provides for patients’ rights, including the right to visitation at any time. The applicant may have tacitly
admitted this, in that its during Round 3 on limiting visitation was that it would occur “Until such a time
COVID is no longer a public health concern we can enforce …”.
It should also be noted that the operational plan has evolved over time, even changing between the last
round of staff review and the publication of the planning staff memorandum. This makes the mitigation
measures proposed even more suspect. For example, the operation plan in the packet, for the first time,
includes a live-in administrator and on-site van parking. The trip generation and parking need analysis,
however, were submitted months ago. Therefore, the traffic and parking impact of the project being
proposed have not been studied. The Commission is being asked to approve a project whose application
should be rejected as incomplete.
Additional issues with operational plan are as follows:
• Staff parking: While it may be possible to limit employee parking on the street, it is likely
impossible to limit parking related to support visits by family, deliveries, and other vehicular visits.
As such, the project would create a dangerous situation where emergency access is not always
going to be easy or, in some cases, possible. In addition, during a shift change, incoming staff will
not be able to park in the driveway, creating congestion on the street.
o No designated handicapped space is called out. If one is required, another off-street
space may become unavailable.
• Visitors: Despite its claims, the applicant cannot prevent clusters of visitors, or limit visitations to
the mornings, etc. The estimate of 1 hour of visitation/week/resident is highly understated.
• Physician services: A total of 4 hours of doctor visits every other week for the entire facility, which
is meant to house 16 end-of-life patients, stretches credulity to the breaking point. On top of
what will likely be a much greater amount of doctor visitation, some patients will surely entertain
visits from their own personal physicians and specialists.
• Physical therapy: the plan speaks to PT being “ambulatory to start” but does not specify what it
will become over time. A previous iteration of the plan provided that patients would not be
ambulatory.
• Outings: A van will be used for outings, and is proposed to use one of the three minimum-sized
spaces in the driveway.
• Holidays: May involve large gatherings; the plan contains no provision to manage such impacts.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 41
• Live-in administrator: At minimum of one and possibly two (if husband/wife) parked cars that per
the plan would be permanently on the street. This was only seen at the staff report and added at
the last minute.
• Hospice: Colorado code (see relevant excerpt attached) defines “hospice” care as far more than
just a periodic nurse visit. Rather, it encompasses “a comprehensive set of services … to provide
for the physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional needs.” At some point, the facility could
house a majority of residents who need hospice care. Yet, the plan grossly understates both the
impact of hospice and the number of potential hospice care recipients. The facility likely will
support multiple hospice providers.
• Housekeeping: We wish our homes only needed 4 hours of housekeeping per week. The
operational plain claims the facility will only receive a single 4-hour housekeeping visit per week?
• Clergy/spiritual service impacts were grossly understated. Clergy visits will likely not be “rare”.
• Real emergencies were not cited.
• Medical transports for hospital care (non-emergency) and physician appointments were assumed
to be taken care of by family and friends. These patients may be very difficult to move and likely
will require professional help when these situations occur. The applicant is assuming these
situations are rare and fails to fully study and provide measures to mitigate their impacts.
• Transports upon death were not cited, along with potential investigations.
Besides the three conditions which planning staff is proposing, which conditions deal with (1) hours where
third-party services may be rendered, (2) limiting street parking, and (3) a requirement that the facility
have a neighborhood ombudsman, the rest of the mitigation is voluntary and proposed by the applicant.
No enforcement mechanism exists with specified measures to ensure impacts are quantified and limited.
And given the applicant’s consistent underestimation of such impacts, we do not believe that the project
can avoid being incompatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area, which is a
violation of code section 3.5.1(A) and (B) – Building Project and Compatibility, Purpose and General
Standard. Therefore, we request that you deny this application or significantly limit the intensity of the
use proposed.
Safety Concerns
A facility at this level brings with it impacts that go beyond just traffic and parking.
During the first three rounds of review, PFA had cited the fire code, which requires 20’ of passage. The
proposed project would result in the street routinely falling below that standard, and PFA’s solution in its
review comments during those first three rounds was to require a fire lane extending to the neighboring
houses – thus prohibiting parking in front of the subject property and the neighboring properties across
more than 200 feet of Castle Ridge Court. This condition would have jeopardized the project, and the
applicant appealed to PFA in what amounted to a legal threat supported by an overly-optimistic statement
of impact. Attached is a short video of cars parked on both sides of the street and a small port -o-potty
truck trying to get through. Imagine a full-size fire truck needing to service a residence through that
gauntlet. The cold fact is that the street is not wide enough to absorb the impact of the proposed project
and still provide for the health and safety of the residents.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 42
Another safety concern involves neighborhood children. Many Werner Elementary school children cross
Castle Ridge Court daily as they walk or bike to school along Highcastle Drive. The level of vehicular activity
caused by such an intense use as that which is proposed would create significant new risk for these kids.
Neighborhood Character
As the Land Use Code requires that the project be consistent with the character of the neighborhood,
significant concerns apply here as well.
The Castle Ridge PUD facilitates an environment where families can play, entertain, ride bikes, etc. In fact,
small children live directly across the street. Children often learn to ride on small bicycles, go see the ice
cream truck, play on scooters – in the safe environment which is the Castle Ridge Court of today. This
project’s impact would significantly change that character, whereby the intensity of the proposed use
would markedly increase the risk level over what families now enjoy.
Taken from the house across the street
Reasonable Accommodation Issues
This project is subject to Type 2 review and must meet the requirements of such review on the merits.
Independent of that, significant flaws exist on the granting of the RA in the first place.
The RA process is closed to the public. Unlike the Type 2 review, where the public is at least able to
provide rebuttal, no such opportunity existed during the RA process. As a result, the only information the
Director was provided was that which the applicants provided. It does not appear that such information
was made to stand up to any critical scrutiny.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 43
The RA was granted on several faulty arguments:
• That the Land Use Code does not limit family size and therefore the group home size limit is
discriminatory:
o This is simply false and is debunked by HUD and the DOJ – as the issue at hand is related
to the number of unrelated persons in a domicile. Fort Collins in fact makes an exception
for group homes allowing for up to 8 unrelated persons as opposed to a smaller amount
elsewhere.
• That 16 persons are necessary to provide therapeutic effectiveness:
o This is false, as there are examples throughout the Front Range of group homes of 8
residents providing memory care. In fact, the ratio of residents to staff should this project
be approved at 8 residents would be 2:1, where the as-proposed ratio is 3.3:1.
• That 16 residents are needed for financial viability:
o This is false in that many group homes are quite viable at 8 residents. Also, the property
objectively was bought at an inflated price – it had the lowest tax assessment of any house
on the street but was purchased for 40% more than any other house in the entire
Miramont PUD. Reasonable Accommodations are not meant to provided additional profit
to excuse a bad buying decision by a group home operator.
Requested Conditions
Code provides the P&Z Board with the power, under 3.5.1(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility
Standards, to impose condition “upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new
development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but
need not be limited to (emphasis added), restrictions on or requirements for:(1)hours of operation and
deliveries;(2)location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such
as noise and glare;(3)placement of trash receptacles;(4)location of loading and delivery zones;(5)light
intensity and hours of full illumination;(6)placement and illumination of outdoor vending
machines;(7)location and number of off-street parking spaces.”
As such, we are requesting that at minimum the following conditions be applied:
1. Limit the number of residents to 8, or deny approval for 16, consistent with the Land Use Code
and the state of Colorado declaration of up to 8 residents being of statewide concern. At this level
the parking impact is still a challenge, although the facility itself can certainly more readily
accommodate privacy issues, keep a garage for added on-site parking (there are 2 garages
proposed to be eliminated), and nearly cut in half the impact. Fort Collins limited the size of group
homes in R-1 zones for a reason. If this proposal is consistent, apparently there is no limit across
the city as a whole?
2. Limit street parking to in front of 636 Castle Ridge Ct only. If the claims the applicants are making
are close to true (they aren’t for 16 residents, perhaps they are closer at 8 residents) then
maintaining this limitation makes the operational plan enforceable and at least mitigates
somewhat the impact to surrounding neighbors. The city should put in a place a mechanism for
this to be enforced (working with the HOA), with penalties up to and including shutdown, if this
condition is violated.
a. No van parking on street or in driveway (must come from offsite)
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 44
3. All HOA – ACC stipulations concerning architecture designed to ensure the project fits in to the
surrounding area need to be fully adopted. These include but are not limited to:
a. Windows
b. Trim
c. Landscaping/lighting
d. Gates
e. Privacy
f. Character
4. Submittal of the state operating license to the HOA
5. Yearly submittal of required certificate of inspection for water supply backflow preventor to HOA
6. If approved, applicants to agree to pay a minimum of half the total neighborhood road
maintenance assessment. For example, if 16 homes pay $X, the group home pays 16*$X due to
doubling the traffic impact (per staff estimate) and wear and tear on the street.
7. South side two picture windows have been continuously incorrectly portrayed on site plan, needs
corrected and both picture windows need screening.
8. Six trash bins for pickup to be placed in front of group home property only (not neighbor
property). Must put back in place by end of trash pickup day.
CONCLUSION
The memory care facility in front of the Commission is a series of exceptions on top of exceptions. In
reference to another proposed project (the Sam’s Club gas station), the mayor recently stated: “If we
don’t like the plan, we should work on changing the plan, (rather than) constantly be making exceptions
to plans” (Coloradoan, 1/19/22). As proposed, this facility is simply a flawed plan, and it is one which
cannot be integrated into the neighborhood, and whose impacts cannot be mitigated.
The above realities lead to the obvious conclusion that a project for 16 memory care residents in an R-1
zone, on a narrow private street with limited parking and limited egress, simply violates the Land Use
Code, and it does so in many respects. Approval of this project would fly in the face of the code itself, and
therefore, we request that you deny this application or significantly limit the intensity of the use proposed.
Eight is enough.
We appreciate your diligence in assessing this most complicated and controversial project.
Castle Ridge Residents
Kurt/Laurie Johnson Steve/Kathy Chacho Carrie Tafoya
612 Castle Ridge Ct 631 Castle Ridge Ct 5213 Castle Ridge Pl
Steve/Josh Sunderman Karen Kotechi/Lawrence Mauch Jesus Martin
607 Castle Ridge Ct 625 Castle Ridge Ct 637 Castle Ridge Ct
Ed/JoAnn Jaerger Tracey Stefanon/Ken Patrick
643 Castle Ridge Ct Lily Patrick
642 Castle Ridge Ct
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 45
Facility Name and Location Number of
Secured Beds
Vacancies Avail
Feb 2022 Contact
Aspens at FC 970‐372‐5835
(formerly Aspire, formerly
Windsong)
64 39 Theodore
Brookdale FC Memory Care
970‐229‐9777 59 13 Tauren
Collinwood Ass Liv & Mem Care
FC 970‐223‐3552 35 0
Columbine West FC 970‐221‐
2273 15 3 Issac Bush
Creekside Village HR FC Secured
970‐482‐5712 18 2
Golden Peaks Care Secured 719‐
323‐3637 12 1
Lemay Avenue H&R Fort Collins
970‐482‐1584 15 0
Mackenzie Place Fort Collins
970‐207‐1939 26 4 Susan Walker
Morningstar of Fort Collins 970‐
999‐8790 24 0 Greg Witten 970‐631‐5133
New Mercer Commons Mem
Care FC 970‐999‐3851 34 2 Gabby Rivera
Totals 302 64 21% vacancy rate
Memory Care Facilities Larimer County
Source: Larimer County Office on Aging, 2021 Aging Resource Guide, verification by phone Beth
Williams
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 46
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 47
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 48
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 49
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1Packet pg. 50
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1Packet pg. 51
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 52
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 53
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 54
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 55
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 56
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 57
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 58
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 59
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 60
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 61
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 62
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 63
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 64
To: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Miramont Memory Care Home
Castle Ridge Group Home.
Owners: Eric Shenk and Xioma Diaz
March 14, 2022.
Dear Sirs:
Thanks for consideration for this home and zoning to serve early memory care seniors in Fort Collins.
Fort Collins has been the leading voice in aging and reframing how Colorado responds to the real time
needs of the seniors who have resided in the community for many years.
Fort Collins has been remarkable to meet the needs and desires of the aging population. Early Memory
Care is a specialty focus that allows engagement of the community as Fort Collins is a Dementia Friendly
and Aging Destination site. This community is located in an area that will serve that concept with gold
standards.
I have been a consultant during this process of developing the home; respecting neighborhood norms
and thinking through the complexities. I will remain a consultant while they go through the last phase of
the city process and then the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. If the community
desires, I will remain a consultant and assist them in the complex regulations and processes. COVID
taught us what we need to have a safe environment with ventilation and space to minimize viral
complications of today and the future.
Technology has moved in lightning speed in the medical and behavioral health arena. This facility will
have the state of the art systems to be able to handle situations and minimize EMS calls. I do not expect
EMS will be accessed at any higher rate than any other family in the neighborhood.
Early Memory Care has been proven across the state to do well in neighborhoods. I have worked
through other communities who were fearful of aging as well. The bottom line, with cooperative focus
the facility sowed into the neighborhood and vice versa. The neighborhood also used the facility for
their family members. Property values have not been impacted which is a typical fear and have gone up
as any other neighborhood in Fort Collins with similar homes.
If I can be of assistance, I am glad to visit with the board how current regulations from the federal and
state entities impact the industry. This facility is not for skilled care, but unskilled care with amenities to
support the residents at the highest functional status possible for as long as possible. Relationships with
skilled, memory care facilities is part of the business process so that smooth transition is available for
families and not be caught up in a crisis mode. As a senior myself, choice where I age is important
aspect for me.
I look forward to the board giving the final approval.
Sincerely;
Patricia Cook RN BSN MA
Colorado Gerontological Society
patriciaplcrn@comcast.net
855-293-6911
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 65
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Development Review Comments
Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:16 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Sharlene Manno
Cc:Kai Kleer
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Castle Ridge Group Home Project
Categories:P&Z
Hi Katie and Shar,
This comment came in yesterday evening about the Castle Ridge Group Home proposal. I’ve saved it here in the public
comments folder for the project.
Take care,
Yani
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
YANI JONES
Pronouns: She/Her (What’s this?)
Program Coordinator
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
(970) 658-0263
FCGov.com/NeighborhoodServices
From: ADDISON SCHOLES <mercys@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Castle Ridge Group Home Project
Dear Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Members,
The purpose of this correspondence is to express support for the Castle Ridge Group Home
project. My wife and I feel that approval of this project would benefit memory care patients, their
supportive families and friends, as well as the City of Fort Collins. Memory care patients would
benefit by having a personalized, home-like alternative to the traditional institutional setting. Families
and friends of these patients would benefit by having the assurance that their loved ones will receive
the individual care they need, in an intimate, small-scale residential environment. I know from the
experience of trying to find care for my aging mother that I did not want to place her in a large
institution. I did not believe that she would be comfortable in that setting or that she would feel "at
home". To be uprooted from your home at an advanced age, with diminished capacity to
comprehend the circumstances of the move, must be a traumatic and frightening experience. And
here is where we believe that the most powerful advantage of the residential, small-scale setting
exists. It resembles home, and therefore the patient will be more likely to feel "at home". They are
unlikely to feel as comfortable in a large institution. Finally, we believe that approval of the Castle
Ridge Group Home project will benefit the City of Fort Collings by demonstrating progressive thinking
regarding care of mental health patients as well as embracing the well thought-out Fort Collins
Housing Strategic Plan.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 66
2
Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.
Best regards,
Addison and Mercedes Scholes
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 67
From:James Scalzo
To:Development Review Comments; Development Review Coordinators; Current_Planning; Kai Kleer
Cc:City Leaders
Subject:[EXTERNAL] #PRIVATE Inquiry on cancellation of Planning and Zoning Commision hearing for Castle Ridge
Group Home, PDP210012
Date:Thursday, March 10, 2022 8:33:10 PM
March 10, 2022
Attn:
City of Fort Collins
Development Review and Planning Department
281 N College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
cc: City of Fort Collins, City Leaders
Dear City of Fort Collins Development Review and Planning Committees,
I’m writing to inquire as to why residents were not properly informed of the cancellation of
this evening's Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing on the Castle Ridge Group
Home, PDP210012?
As a property owner in the neighborhood of the Castle Ridge Group Home proposal, Ireceived proper notification via U.S. mail of the time, date, and place of the hearing. That
was to be this evening, March 10th, at 6pm. When I attempted to find the Zoom information
online this evening, I could not locate it. Looking at the project I see the meeting was
rescheduled for March 23rd.
As of today, no notification has been received via U.S. mail of this updated time, date, andplace of the hearing. Additionally notice of a hearing via a mailing must be sent out no lessthan 10 business days prior to the hearing.
It is not reasonable to expect a citizen to continuously check the city’s Planning and Zoning
site for a rescheduled meeting, so any notice of a meeting being rescheduled should also
be done through the same means of the original notification. Additionally, there are not 10
business days before March 23rd.
I am requesting that the meeting be rescheduled to a date and time that allows for proper
notification to property owners through U.S. mail with at least 10 business days’ notice.
Sincerely,
Jim Scalzo
Resident - Miramont Planned Unit Development
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying documents
contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and
legally privileged. This information is only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it was intended. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 68
information contained in this message and any accompanying documents is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender immediately and delete the message. Thank you.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 69
Testimony in support of the Miramont Memory Care Home or Castle Ridge
Group Home
My name is Gustavo Espinosa, and I would like to express my support for the
Castle Ridge Group Home Project.
Like many other people dealing with challenges of family members with
Alzheimer’s / Dementia we want to support and assist and keep them in their
own home for as long as possible. However, we recognize the progressive nature
of their condition and witness firsthand how they lose their abilities to live
independently. When no longer possible, we look and advocate for homelike
alternatives. The Castle Ridge Group is one of those alternatives we are presently
considering for my 89-year-old sister who is a widow with no children. The Castle
Ridge Group Home is a small, affordable and well-located alternative to have
available for my sister.
Please consider that Castle Ridge is taking a big step by investing in the
community. By adhering to the rules and regulations, it hopes to ensure the
safety and the integration of the home residents, and the safety and comfort of
their neighbors.
The difference that places like this make for the well being of those who need
that kind of care and for the peace of mind of their families is priceless.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Gustavo Espinosa
3239 Barbera Ct.
Greeley CO 80634
Gespinosa2002@yahoo.com
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 5
Packet pg. 70
From:Octavio Noda
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Project Miramont Memory Care Home
Date:Sunday, March 20, 2022 8:30:45 PM
March 20, 2022
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is a brief note to express support for the projectMiramont Memory Care Home, owned by Eric and Xioma Díaz.
A few days ago, I had the opportunity to tour the home,courtesy of Mr. Erick Shenk, one of the owners. He gave a fewof us a complete tour of the house and answered all ourquestions. I was impressed by the design of the place. It isvery attractive, and it seems like a very suitable place toserve persons suffering from Alzheimer’s and Dementia. It is awell-equipped house to receive only a small number of people, acondition which almost assures excellent personal care.
The sector of town is tranquil and convenient for anenterprise such as the one that is proposed. I learned thatthis memory care home is unique in northern Colorado, and assuch, it means that a significant contribution to the communitywill be made by its existence. Also, this enterprise will notinterrupt the peace of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to his letter.
Sincerely,
Octavio Noda Berthoud, Colorado
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 6
Packet pg. 71
From:srsunde@aol.com
To:Development Review Comments
Cc:Alyssa Stephens; Kai Kleer
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 636 Castle Ridge Court
Date:Sunday, March 20, 2022 11:32:30 AM
To the P and Z Commision and to the City of Fort Collins:
I plan to attend in person the P and Z meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2022. My home is 3
doors down from the subject home.
The Petitioners for this proposed large-scale business, from day one, have been completely disingenuous
about their plan, and they have been grossly misapplying the concept of the FHA in an effort to simply
enrich themselves at the expense of all others in the area.
The FHA was written with the intent to provide fair and reasonable opportunity to a protected class.
There are several qualifications included in both the intent and the letter of the Act. Some of these
include, but are not limited to:
A genuine need in the community
Fairness to all involved and affected
"Reasonable" accommodations - emphasis on "Reasonable"
The project must fit into the overall environment of the community and not drastically alter the
environment
The project must adhere to general safety, parking, and traffic rules
The project must not "Take Away" value from others in the community
The proposal by the petitioners does not fit any of the above. There is no genuine need for what they are
proposing. There are currently multiple other group homes in the area with a current vacancy rate of over
20%. Setting up a large business in the middle of a planned low density housing development in direct
violation to codes and covenants so one opportunist can make massive profits at a tremendous expense
to all of the others in the community has no fairness in it at all. The petitioners are asking for grossly
"Unreasonable Accommodations" and wrongfully labeling them as "Reasonable" for self-serving massive
profits. The simple fact that the petitioners propose to sardine 16 residents with special needs into a
single level of a one family home gives very clear evidence that this couple has no intent to serve this
protected class, but rather to "USE" this protected class for their own personal profit. This is a total
abomination of the intent of fairness in housing. The impact on the surrounding community would be
devastating.
I believe the P and Z Committee and the City of Fort Collins has an undeniable duty to the entire
community we live in and also an undeniable duty to ALL of the residents in our community for fairness.
The P and Z Committee and the City of Fort Collins have no duty to give unilateral preference to one
opportunistic couple at the expense of the entire rest of the community or to give special preference to
one couple who is wrongfully "Using" the label of a protected class for their own personal profit.
This proposal is wrong on every level.
This proposal needs to be flatly denied.
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 7
Packet pg. 72
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Sunderman, MD
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 7
Packet pg. 73
From:ernesto espinosa
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 23MAR2022 Agenda Item #4: Castle Ridge Group Home Project
Date:Sunday, March 20, 2022 10:44:48 AM
Hello,
I'm commenting on behalf of Castle Ridge Group Home.
There are always those who oppose any kind of change. We typically refer to them as NIMBYs (Not In My
Backyard). But some change can be a good thing for both sides. As communities we all too often look to place
individuals with special needs in places where they are out of sight and out of mind to the detriment of those
individuals. This type of group of home inside a residential community can provide huge benefits to the residents of
the home as they are not locked away in some commercial location in a large size group home where they are
treated more as an amazon package to be warehoused. This is a place where they can feel that they are in a home
with multi generational neighbors and children playing in the streets. In a small size group home they can receive
the attention and caring they deserve as individuals. Care and attention that is no longer possible at their own homes.
These people will not be foreigners, or dangerous elements. They will be our mothers or fathers. People who raised
our children, who've led wonderful lives that sacrificed for and contributed to our communities being what they are
today and through no fault of their own now struggle to remember those lives and can no longer continue on their
own. Should we not do what we can to help them and make them feel comfortable, valued, and wanted? In time, the
current residents of this neighborhood may actually become residents of this group home. Imagine the benefit of not
having to even leave their neighborhood. To have family so close by that a small walk is all that is needed to be
visited by family.
Much is made of the maximum size of 16, but 16 allows for fluctuations in vacancy rates. With a size of 8, a single
vacancy for any amount of time carries a large impact. In addition there is an over emphasis placed on parking on
one time events such as holidays. There are always parking issues in those cases. All it takes is for one family or
more to decide to hold a party. This shouldn't be a consideration. Besides I'm sure accommodations could be made.
Perhaps the owners could arrange to shuttle people to/from a staging area should it be an extreme situation. There
are always ways to make things happen without overly inconveniencing the neighbors.
I think "Neighborhood character" should be outlawed as a reason to ever deny a project. Neighborhoods change and
should overtime as residents come and go overtime. Change is good for all of us. America is built on change.
Colorado is built on change. Ft. Collins is built on change. Could you imagine if we never allowed a neighborhood's
character to change? If you don't believe neighborhoods change may I suggest an online visit to the Fort Collins
History Connection.
To summarize, I believe the Castle Ridge Group Home project can provide a positive and beneficial impact for the
citizens of Fort Collins as well as the residents of Castle Ridge Court. We should say NNIMBYs (No Not In My
Back Yards) who just throw everything at the wall hoping something will stick because they resist all change.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my words,
--
Thank you,
Ernesto Espinosa
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 8
Packet pg. 74
Alfonso and Delia Rodríguez
3120 66th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
leyendapub@comcast.net
March 21, 2022
Planning and Zoning Board
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Members of the Board:
On the afternoon of March 18 my wife and I were given a tour of the Castle Ridge Group
Home (Miramont Memory Care Home) owned by Mr. Eric Shenk and Miss Xioma Díaz. We were
interested in learning of the operation of such services, since perhaps in the future we may be
candidates for similar services. Thus, this is a letter of support for that initiative.
Mr. Shenk was kind enough to provide us with a thorough presentation of the premises,
including plans for renovations in certain areas, and their goals in providing quality care to
persons suffering with Alzheimer’s and Dementia. He indicated that Castle Ridge Group Home
would be, at this time, the only enterprise devoted exclusively to that type of service in northern
Colorado. If this is the case, then it would constitute an important contribution to the community.
The place is impeccably clean and would only serve up to fifteen clients, which would
almost guarantee a high quality of individual care. We have visited assisted living institutions in
Loveland and other places, and have noticed that in those places some of the clients feel
neglected and depressed due to low quality care. The Home, in this case, could easily become
like a large family where people can enjoy many moments of real fellowship and amiable
communication.
Also, Castle Ridge Group Home would be small enough to prevent uncomfortable traffic
in the neighborhood.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above we support the inauguration of CRGH. Thank
you very much.
Respectfully,
Alfonso and Delia Rodríguez
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 9
Packet pg. 75
From:SUSAN HUNT
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 23MAR2022 Agenda Item #4: Castle Ridge Group Home Project
Date:Monday, March 21, 2022 2:07:28 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing on behalf of Castle Ridge Group Home. What a forward thinking and much needed housing option they are giving to the
parents of our community suffering from Alzheimer’s and Dementia. They should be applauded for their efforts and most certainly
granted the ability to offer the seniors of our community suffering from these illnesses with an affordable small scale housing option.
These are our mom’s and dad’s and I don’t know about you but I want mine intermingled within our community in a home environment
where they are still part of our community and afforded more personal, unique care and not placed in an institutional like setting.
This is not a vacation rental home or a party pad but rather a home that will provide a service that does not stash away our seniors in
institutional like places away from view. It will be inclusive and respectful and provides a much needed change in how we live and treat
our aging family members with Alzheimer’s and dementia.
Please think of your own family members when making this decision and make sure you think of the larger picture because it is much
bigger than “parking” which can be worked through. It is time for change and we need this service in our community.
Thank you,
Susan
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 10
Packet pg. 76
From:Fabiola Marks
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Testimony supporting Castle Ridge Group Home
Date:Monday, March 21, 2022 6:04:44 PM
Home: Alzheimer’s / Dementia Miramont Memory Care Home
Project: Castle Ridge Group Home
I, Fabiola Marks, am supporting the Castle Ridge Group Home. I’d like to keep my aunt, who’s about to turn 90, in
her own condo for the rest of her life. But as time goes on, her
dementia becomes worse, and it’s dangerous for her to be living there.
The Miramont Memory Care Home would be a smaller homelike environment that’s still
affordable and not a large institutional setting. The unique needs of my aunt would be
well served here with a better potential selection of working staff in this small building.
Fort Collins should increase the housing supply and accessibility for all.
Fabiola Marks
marksfabiola@gmail.com
Sent from my iPad
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 11
Packet pg. 77
From:Karraker,Nancy
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Castle Ridge Group House
Date:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:26:55 PM
I wish to show my support for this smaller facility for persons with dementia. I have known several people who
have been in large settings as well as smaller ones. I can tell you that the ones in the smaller environments seem to
thrive, not just exist.
The care seems to be more personalized and support is more readily available when needed. The staff has the
opportunity to become more familiar with both family and friends of the persons in their care.
Thank You,
Nancy Karraker
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 12
Packet pg. 78
From:Fenglai Jiang
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Concerns on PDP210012
Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 2:42:48 PM
Dear officer,
I received the Fort Collins city notice about the Castle Ridge Group Home
proposal PDP210012, and want to speak out about my concern on the
proposal as a neighbor of the area. This neighborhood is a low density
residential area including the Werner Elementary School. This project for
16-resident group home will alter the residential density of
the neighborhood hence lower the values of the houses in the area. More
people will also increase the traffic flow around the school area, which is
already very busy on the school hours.
Based on the considerations above, I am strongly against the project and
hope the Planning and Zooning Commission will reject the proposal at
today's public hearing.
Regards,
Fenglai Jiang
5113 Bulrush Ct
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 13
Packet pg. 79
From:hector espinosa
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Testimony in support of Castle Ridge Group Home
Date:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:15:06 PM
March 22, 2022
My name is Hector Espinosa, I would like to express my support for the Castle Ridge Group
Home Project. .
We all know that the demand for care for family members with Alzheimer's or dementia is
growing. We also know the challenge their care represents for their love ones.
They could be any one of our siblings, parents or partners.
And what a better opportunity for these Seniors with these conditions to have
a place like Castle Ridge where they could live in small homelike environment.
A place where they could get more personalized attention and care; than in large Institutos
with 40 or 50 other individual's with the same condition.
The Castle Ridge is investing in the community and adhering to the Rules and Regulations,
to ensure the safety and the integration of the home residents
and the safety and confort of their neighbors.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my request
Sincerely
Hector Espinosa
hespinosa78@g mail.com
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 14
Packet pg. 80
file:///EFP/...omment/PDP/Pruznick%20Comments%20and%20Attachments/Pruznick_Castle%20Ridge%20Group%20Home_3-23-2022.txt[3/23/2022 10:25:26 AM]
2022-03-23 Michael Pruznick, Previous owner of the subject property and
a project investor.
When I was little I met this girl that walked funny. I asked the mom
what was wrong with the daughter, she said nothing, that the problem
was in my head. I only saw a problem in the mom's head too. But,
after years of watching this girl out compete many boys in baseball,
football, and boxing, I realized the mom was right. Likewise, tonight.
The problem is not this project but in the minds of the opposition.
Thus, I support the proposal without the conditions as they are
discriminatory.
When we first learned of the opposition, we offered to meet, they refused,
stating things like no wiggle room to negotiate, they would never warm
up to the project, the HOA would never allow it, that castle ridge was
for millionaires, doctors, dentists, lawyers, politicians, BUT NOT THESE
PEOPLE. It was suggested that I breach the contract with my agent and
buyer so they could bring in a good single family or face consequences.
Are you aware of the violence against the project and that my family
was forced into hiding for four months? This defines the character of
the neighborhood, this project is not the problem, it is the solution.
The opposition also bragged about their influence with the city. I see
opposition comments provided by the CTO of city-funded Woodward and the
president of city contractor PDS, both using the full strength of their
official corporate contact info. Also part of the opposition is medical
professionals from city partner UCH. What about the Representative Kipp
letter, crimes against children not a state interest, but Realtor ethics
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Realtors are. I can only imagine
the influence needed to get a progressive socialist to change sides,
but then the environmentalists on council did vote to block my fossil
fuel home project with O70,2019. I just hope the standards used in Fort
Collins v Gutowsky campaign finance violations and Pruznick v Gutowsky
ethics violations complaint don't apply here.
My 50 page written comments document over 30 ways this project helps
the city meet its goals and objectives. Residential care saves lives,
C19, 1 residential facility death compared to 130 institutional deaths.
Should the institutional facility that lost a client resulting in reverse
911 warning calls be the only option? Why are neighborhood day cares
with 2 daily trips per client generally welcomed, but parent care with
less trips so unwelcome even though elderly is a protected class?
The neighbors supported my wife's physical disability with a waiver.
Do you realize that SSDI plus LTDI makes my wife's physical disability
treatment a commercial enterprise, no different than employees and
customers for a home business. No one complained about her state funded
paid SSP or city funded CVNA needing to coordinate with other support
services as condition 1 suggests this project should do for mental
disability. The neighborhood character is to accept paid support for
its physically disabled residents, thus the character must to to accept
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 81
file:///EFP/...omment/PDP/Pruznick%20Comments%20and%20Attachments/Pruznick_Castle%20Ridge%20Group%20Home_3-23-2022.txt[3/23/2022 10:25:26 AM]
paid support for its mentally disabled residents.
Did you see all the pictures of the neighbors with their overflowing
trash cans on the side walk, basket ball hoops and Realtor signs in the
right of way, neighbor construction project in the street for weeks,
and the car on the wrong side of the road to get around the mail truck,
and other encroachments, violations, fire hazards, illegal parked RV
and RV road damage? This defines the character of the neighborhood
and that this project is an improvement. Would you tell whites they
could put trash cans on the side walk and blacks to park down the road
and walk around those cans in the street and get hit by cars? If not,
then why condition 2 for this project? Is it to prevent physically
disabled employees from working for the project?
We've seen the opposition support the wooden fence to the north but
not here, the parkway to the north while calling it ridiculous here.
We've seen them support non-single family use by the school, while
opposing single family use here. We've seen them call the traffic here
dangerous, but statistics show that their ice cream trucks, garage trucks
(and optional yard waste trucks), and Internet package delivery trucks
are more dangerous. We see the clients called dangerous, but the law
prohibits dangerous people from living in this home, but not other Castle
Ridge homes. The fears expressed about Red Tail ponds never came to be,
nor will they here. Condition 3 exposes this project a denial of service
attack by frivolous and merit-less fear based complaints.
When you hear the opposition speak about this facility, replace client
with black, brown, Islamic, or LGBT, then ask yourself if the complaint
is valid or discriminatory.
I'll close by thanking Uncle Jim and Uncle Bob for introducing me to
group homes at an early age and teaching me that the mentally disabled
are people too.
I hope you will vote unanimously to protect the federal ADA/FHA rights
of this project and to educate the opposition so they will see an appeal
has no chance, so the healing can begin tonight.
Thank you
These comments are my personal opinion as a private citizen.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 82
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Jul-17-2019 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please contact City Clerk's Office City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 83
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Jul-17-2019 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please contact City Clerk's Office City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 84
From: Cathy Kipp <cathy@cathykipp.com>
To: "mikepruz@gmail.com" <mikepruz@gmail.com>
Cc: Senator Joann Ginal <SenatorJoannGinal@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Castle Ridge Group Home Needs Your Help
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:28:59 -0600
Dear Michael and Vera,
This is really an issue that needs to be resolved between you, your
neighbors, and the city of Fort Collins. There is not a legislative role
here. If your agent made representations regarding the zoning of your home,
that may be another issue.
Best,
Cathy
_____________________________________________________________
Representative Cathy Kipp
She/Her/Hers
Colorado House of Representatives for House District 52
Cell: 970-219-5267 Legislative office: 303-866-4569
200 East Colfax, Room 635, Denver, CO 80203
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM <mikepruz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2021-04-25
>
> Dear Fort Collins State Legislators, Ginal, Arndt, and Kipp,
>
> We are asking for your explicit support and endorsement of the Castle
> Ridge Group Home. As you know we turned this home into the leading
> Environmental Sustainability home in town. Now, our buyers wish to also
> make this the leading Social Sustainability home in town.
>
> During the for sale open house, our agent clearly stated that a group
> home was a possible use (this was indicated in the MLS and flier) and
> no one expressed any concerns or issues. However, once the Conceptual
> Review was posted early/mid December 2020, strong opposition occurred.
> We reached out to the opposition to meet and explain the FHA, ADA,
> and the great benefit this project would bring to the neighborhood.
> However, the neighbors refused to meet, and instead, chose to respond
> with hate messages, threats, extortion, and cyberbullying.
>
> Michael's uncles started and ran group homes on the east coast, even
> hiring the first female overnight staff member in an all male client
> group home. Michael spent many summers in the environment and has a
> much better understanding and experience than most. One of Michael's
> uncles even produced a video called, "The American Dream, but Not In
> My Back Yard," so we knew to expect some organized opposition, but what
> has occurred has gone beyond our wildest fears.
>
> As showings are not compatible with Vera's disabilities, we took an
> extended vacation to give Michael's sister a care giving break from
> their father. However, because of the hate expressed to us and fear
> our return would result in escalations, we chose to go into hiding until
> the sale completed. Our fears were proven true in March when a neighbor
> accosted the buyer and their 9 month old child at the house.
>
> Even after being told of the FHA / ADA rights by the HOA, many neighbors
> still made hate based discriminatory arguments against the project at
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 85
> the April 5th Development Review Meeting.
>
> Unfortunately, things are getting worse. Since the sale completed and
> the buyers moved in, the number of negative interactions have increased.
>
> Both the buyers and we want this to be a successful project and role
> model for future integrated housing as supported by the new Fort Collins
> Housing Strategic Plan.
>
> Due to your authority and respect in the community, your strong
> support and endorsement for the project can help turn the dysfunctional
> confrontation into productive cooperation. You can do a much better
> job exposing the discrimination and calling for cooperation that we could.
>
> Please take a stand for social justice and against those that would harm
> and threaten a child and the rights of the disabled.
>
> Michael and Vera Pruznick, SD14, HD53
>
> REFERENCES:
>
> These just a few highlights.
>
> SELECTED MESSAGING:
>
> Selected opposition statements showing elitist white privilege
> republican ignorance, hate, and discrimination based view. Imagine if
> these were said about BIPOC, LGBT+, or similar protected groups.
>
> These are million dollar homes and a 16 bed assisted living proposal
> with millionaires around will never fly. [What if it were, a BIPOC
> neighbor will never fly, instead of that group home?]
>
> Neighbors are doctors and/or attorneys, and litigation against you
> personally, was brought up. [What if it were, to stop the sale to
> that LGBT+ couple, instead of that group home]
>
> There is no wiggle room here, as a neighbor, and HOA board member is
> there is NO WAY this will be approved by the HOA we are prepared to
> litigate and spend whatever is needed. [What if "this" was Muslim
> family?]
>
> Our request is for you to terminate the relationship with the Realtor
> and start over and do this in a correct manner, we want to get a good
> single family, hopefully we can put an end to what is going on here.
> We will do everything we can to help you guys get this home sold in
> the correct manner. ["CORRECT MANNER ... "A GOOD SINGLE FAMILY",
> What if that were, correct manner for Decent White Family?]
>
> The "[]" example text make it clear how hateful these statements
> would be if the target was another protected class. We hope these
> examples help you see how hateful these statements are towards this
> protected class.
>
> LARIMER COUNTY COVID-19 DATA:
>
> As of 2021-04-04, there 131 Larimer County C-19 Outbreak Deaths.
>
> Only 1 (0.08%) came from a residential facility, and this was full
> skilled nursing facility, not a limited memory care center.
>
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 86
> 130 (91.6%) came from institutional facilities, which is 56% of all
> Larimer County C-19 deaths.
>
> Residential facilities are life savers, institutional facilities
> are life takers.
>
> DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEETING:
>
> https://ourcity.fcgov.com/devreview/widgets/18709/videos/2550
>
> When reviewing the video, keep in mind disability has the same
> protected status as BIPOC, LGBT+, religion, and others.
>
> How come the neighbor to the north is allowed a parkway, but a
> former HOA board member characterizes the same for this property
> as ridiculous?
>
> How come the neighbor to the north has a wooden privacy fence, but
> commenters insisted that such would not be allowed for this property?
>
> How come PSD was given an exception to the covenants single family
> home rule and allowed to use two lots for parking and two lots for
> a playground, but this project isn't allowed to exercise its FHA /
> ADA protected rights that the covenants violate.
>
> When it comes to the 3 and 5 year old across the street, how come
> neighbors are not concerned about the unfenced fish pond one home
> to the south? Reach for fish, slip, hit head, fall into pond,
> certain death.
>
> When it comes to snow and ice, how come none of the neighbors brought
> up the ice dam that forms at the Castle Ridge exit?
>
> Discrimination is hate statements made out of false fear of the
> unknown to stop something legal and lawful, especially after refusing
> to be educated, yet letting friends and family get away with actual
> violations.
>
> SINGLE FAMILY USE:
>
> Keep in mind that OctoMom, OctoDad, and their live in Support Person,
> 19 people in all would be a valid U+2 single family use. Think of
> all the birthdays, owner cars, visitors, trash, activities, and such.
> If the higher footprint Octo Family Home is allowed, then clearly the
> lower footprint Castle Ridge Group Home is a reasonable accommodation.
>
> NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OUT:
>
> As for fire department access, see attached. If there is enough
> access for a party, there is enough access for an emergency.
>
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 87
CITY COUNCIL VOTING RESULTS
May 21, 2019
Councilmembers Present: Cunniff, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Pignataro, Stephens, Summers,
Troxell
Councilmembers Absent: None
ITEM ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2019, Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves for Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2019 Adopted City Budget.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2019, Vacating Portions of
Hobbit Street Right-of-Way East of Shields Street.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2019, Making Appropriations
for a Federal Lobbying Contract Related to Regulation of Train Horn
Noise.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2019, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations for a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant Project to
Update the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2019, Amending Section 23-
194 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Natural Areas
Permits.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
6. Items Relating to Various Amendments to City Code Chapter 26
Pertaining to Utility Services.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2019, Amending Section
26-491 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Add and Revise
Definitions Related to the City’s Stormwater System.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2019, Amending Section
26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Add and Revise
Definitions Related to the City’s Municipal Electric Utility
System.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
Adopted on Consent 7-0
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2019, Approving the Second
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Fort Collins-Loveland
Municipal Airport, Now Known as the Northern Colorado Regional
Airport.
Adopted as amended on
Consent 7-0
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2019, Designating the
Kamal/Livingston Property, 608 West Laurel Street, Fort Collins,
Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2019, Designating the Alfred
Parker Duplexes I and II, 221-229 West Mulberry Street, Fort
Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 88
ITEM ACTION
10. Resolution 2019-060 Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Master
Lease Agreement with Smartlink for AT&T Small Wireless
Communication Equipment Attachments on City Facilities in Public
Rights of Way
Adopted on Consent 7-0
11. Resolution 2019-061 Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Master
Lease Agreement with Zayo Group LLC for Sprint Small Wireless
Communication Equipment Attachments on City Facilities in Public
Rights-of-Way.
Adopted as amended on
Consent 7-0
12. Resolution 2019-063 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an
Agreement with the Poudre School District R-1 for the School
Resource Officer Program.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
13. Resolution 2019-062 Appointing Brandi Lynn Nieto as an Assistant
Municipal Judge of the Fort Collins Municipal Court and Authorizing
the Execution of an Employment Agreement.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
14. Resolution 2019-064 Adopting Amended Rules of Procedure
Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Council Work
Sessions.
Adopted on Consent 7-0
ITEMS NEEDING INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
15. Resolution 2019-066 Adopting of FoCo Creates Arts and Culture
Master Plan.
Adopted as amended 7-0
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2019, Making Appropriations
and Authorizing Transfers of Appropriations for the Lemay and
Vine Intersection Improvements Project and Related Art in Public
Places.
Adopted 7-0
17. Resolution 2019-065 Making Board and Commission Liaison and
Council Committee Assignments and Making Appointments to
Various External Boards and Authorities.
Adopted as amended 7-0
18. Possible Motion Directing the City Attorney on Next Steps Related
to Litigation Regarding the City’s Public Nudity Ordinance.
Motion to direct City Attorney
to negotiate a settlement
adopted 4-3
(Nays: Gutowsky,
Summers, Troxell)
Meeting Adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 89
CITY COUNCIL VOTING RESULTS
June 4, 2019
Councilmembers Present: Cunniff, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Pignataro, Stephens, Summers,
Councilmembers Absent: Troxell
ITEM ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, and May
21, 2019, Regular Council Meetings
Adopted on Consent 6-0
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2019, Making
Appropriations for a Federal Lobbying Contract Related to
Regulation of Train Horn Noise.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
3. Items Relating to a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant Project to
Update the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2019, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations for a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant Project to
Update the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
B. Resolution 2019-067 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into
a Grant Agreement with the State Board of the Great Outdoors
Colorado Trust Fund for the Receipt of Funds for the Project to
Update the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
Adopted on Consent 6-0
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2019, Amending Section
23-194 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Natural
Areas Permits.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
5. Items Relating to Various Amendments to City Code Chapter 26
Pertaining to Utility Services.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2019, Amending
Section 26-491 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Add
and Revise Definitions Related to the City’s Stormwater
System.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2019, Amending
Section 26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Add
and Revise Definitions Related to the City’s Municipal Electric
Utility System.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
Adopted on Consent 6-0
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2019, Approving the Second
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Fort Collins-Loveland
Municipal Airport, Now Known as the Northern Colorado Regional
Airport.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2019, Designating the
Kamal/Livingston Property, 608 West Laurel Street, Fort Collins,
Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 90
ITEM ACTION
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2019, Designating the
Alfred Parker Duplexes I and II, 221-229 West Mulberry Street, Fort
Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2019, Making
Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers of Appropriations for the
Lemay and Vine Intersection Improvements Project and Related Art
in Public Places.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2019, Making Appropriations
and Authorizing Transfers of Appropriations for the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility Sidestream Treatment Project and Related Art
in Public Places.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2019, Approving, Affirming and
Ratifying Funding of the Non-City Share of the NECCO Project by
Offering to Owners and Developers of Property Within the NECCO
Area a Proportionate Buy-In to Connect to the NECCO Project.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
12. Items Relating to Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No.077, 2019, Making Various
Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2019, Amending the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code Regarding Community
Development and Neighborhood Services Director Variances to
Certain Land Use Code Standards
Withdrawn from
consideration
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2019, Authorizing Execution of
a Deed of Dedication to the City of Loveland for the Extension of
Rockwell Avenue Across Jointly Owned City and City of Loveland
Property at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
14. Resolution 2019-068 Approving Fort Fund Grant Disbursements. Adopted on Consent 6-0
15. Resolution 2019-069 Naming the Gardens on Spring Creek Pavilion
in Honor of the Everitt Family.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
16. Resolution 2019-070 Accepting a Proposed Donation of a Sculpture
to be Placed at the Gardens on Spring Creek.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
17. Resolution 2019-071 Authorizing the Assignment of the City's
Private Activity Bond Allocation for 2019 to Housing Catalyst to
Finance the New Construction of Affordable Housing Units.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
18. Items Relating to the Shared Use of Regional Broadband Transport
and Access Services.
A. Resolution 2019-072 Authorizing the Execution of an
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the City of
Loveland for the Shared Use of Regional Broadband Transport
and Access Services.
B. Resolution 2019-073 Authorizing the Execution of an
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Town
of Estes Park for the Shared Use of Regional Broadband
Transport and Access Services.
Adopted on Consent 6-0
Adopted on Consent 6-0
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 91
ITEMS NEEDING INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
19. City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community
Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s
Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and the City’s Human Services
Program (HSP), and Appropriating Funding Consistently
Therewith.
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2019-074 Approving the
Programs and Projects that will Receive Funds from the
Federal Community Development Block Grant Program,
HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund, and the City’s Human Services Program.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2019,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
C. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2019,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME
Investment Partnerships Fund.
Adopted 5-0
(Gorgol recused)
Adopted 5-0
(Gorgol recused)
Adopted 5-0
(Gorgol recused)
20. Items Relating to Regulating Electric Scooters.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2019, Amending the Fort
Collins Traffic Code Relating to Electric Scooters.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2019, Amending Chapter
24 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Parking of
Electric Scooters.
Adopted 5-0
(Summers absent)
Adopted 5-0
(Summers absent)
Consideration of a motion to cancel the June 18, 2019 Regular Council
Meeting.
Adopted 5-0
(Summers absent)
Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 92