Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/08/2001mutes approved by the Board at the March 15, 2001 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — February 8, 2001 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) N Chairperson: William Stockover I Phone: 482-4895 (H) I A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday February 8, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Remington STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the December 14, 2000, meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Board Member Ayraud abstaining. V ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2318--Approved Address: 2405 Crabtree Drive Petitioner: Zakco Commercial Consultants, Inc. Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c) Back round: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from fifteen feet to six feet, eight inches in order to allow the construction of a ten foot by thirteen foot utility room addition. The addition would be constructed on the west end of the existing four-plex building. The addition will not displace any parking. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing building is already at a six feet, eight inch setback. The laundry facilities are currently in the basement. The owner needs to have the laundry facilities on the main level for easier acess. There is no other location to construct the addition. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Currently there is an enclosed stairwell that leads down into the basement as the access to the laundry facility. The Applicant wished to relocate the laundry facility onto an addition that would abut the rear section of the building. The existing structure already has a six feet, eight inch setback. There is an open area to the rear of the complex. At one time there was an apartment association that agreed upon sharing the common open area. Over the years, the apartment association disappeared but the open area in the center remained. It used to be a swimming pool. Prior to the current zoning designation of RL, the property used to be in the RM zoning district, which was a medium density designation. The RM zoning designation allowed multi-plex or multi -family units to exist with different standards as far as setbacks. Applicant Participation: Rick Hartman, representative for the owner of the building, Neighbor to Neighbor, addressed the Board. Their operation offers subsidized housing for women who are in need, in an abusive situation, or trying to start their lives over again. They rent apartments to their clients on an as needed basis until they are able to get established and on their own again. One concern with having the laundry facilities in the basement is that the clients are farther away from their children while doing their laundry. Another concern is the possibility of an accident because the clients are going down into the basement. There is also a security issue for the ladies with the laundry facilities being in a basement. Applicant Hartman stated that by having the laundry facilities on the main ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 3 level, the clients could more safely access the laundry service as well as keep a closer watch on their children while they were doing their laundry. The open space is of substantial size. There are some overhead utility lines, which make it a public access and easement space. Applicant Hattman stated that Neighbor to Neighbor was under the impression that they could use the common space and essentially the property line. The property lines were put very close to the buildings. The zone changed from when it was originally built to what it is currently. The Applicant would not be hindering any safety aspects. For example, in case of an emergency, rescuers and their vehicles would still have access through the park space to assist anybody who may be in an emergency situation in the area. The Applicant would not be hindering that situation as far as being able to get emergency equipment to a particular unit. For the reasons stated above; Applicant Hattman does not think the addition is detrimental to the public good. It would aid in the health and safety of the people in the neighborhood as well as Neighbor to Neighbor clients. Breth asked the Applicant if he owned the common area. The Applicant responded by stating he does not. The Applicant thought someone might have purchased the middle area. The Applicant did not know if the gentleman still owned the property or not. Board member Miscio asked if the access to the basement was only from the outside. Who could get down into the basement? Miscio also asked if the access to the utility room being proposed had to be from the outside also? The Applicant stated that there is no common hallway. The design of the building was for four individual units in the 4- plex. Miscio asked the Applicant if the laundry facility would be common to all of the tenants. The Applicant stated that each individual unit did not have utility hook-ups, so the facility would be used by everyone. Miscio asked if the Applicant has checked with the covenants in the area to see if it is allowable to build on the common area. Miscio also asked if the convenants excluded the Applicant from doing any such thing. Miscio wanted assurance that it would be legal. The Applicant responded that Neighbor to Neighbor was not going to build outside of the individual lot. The only area that is common would be that open space area and Neighbor to Neighbor is not intending to build in that common area. Diane Matthews, the property manager for Neighbor to Neighbor, addressed the Board. The space is a paved area between the two buildings. Neighbor to Neighbor owns both of those four-plexes and both buildings use the laundry facilities in the one basement area. It would still be accessible to both buildings. One of the reasons Neighbor to Neighbor would like to do this is because the stairs are very steep. She has received many complaints from residents because they have to come down the steep stairs or when the residents come up with their laundry and are trying to reach to the top to the door to open it while carrying their laundry. It is a liability issue Neighbor to Neighbor would like to alleviate. ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 4 Ayraud inquired about the common area, and asked the Applicant if they owned the common area. If Neighbor to Neighbor owned the common area, Ayraud alluded to the possibility of building the laundry facility on the common open space and a variance would not be required. The Applicant has been under the impression that it is a common area and no one owns it. Gary Lopez mentioned that a property line issue still existed regardless of who owned the common area. Ayraud asked where staff has the current property line measured. Lopez stated the property line is midway in the center of the fence line. Ayraud asked staff if the fence was in violation. Miscio asked if a survey had ever been done. He was concerned about building a structure without knowing exactly where the property lines existed and not knowing who owned what. It was his opinion that the information should be validated before a variance is granted. A representative from Zacko Commercial Consultants addressed the Board. He wanted to clarify that the building will only be extended onto the blocked off area that is part of the common area between the two buildings. The end of the addition is where the end of the building is. Zacko stated the property line along the fence has created the need for a variance. If there was a question regarding the property line it is going to be that Neighbor to Neighbor owns more than they thought, rather than less. Rob Smith of 407 N. Lincoln, Loveland, Colorado was in favor of the appeal. He is with Zacko Commercial Consultants. Zacko has researched this issue and has looked at all the legal descriptions. The property line is six feet, eight inches, from the door. It is the Applicant's practice to find property lines, employ surveyors, if necessary, and make sure that the company is building on the property. Stockover stated the length of the fence was still in question, but the property line is six feet, eight inches, from the door. Applicant Smith replied that this was correct. Miscio asked the Applicant if it was an assumption or was it measured. Applicant Smith stated that it is based on the legal description that he received from Latimer County Deeds and Titles. Miscio stated the problem with the legal description is that it does not show where the building is on the property. Smith replied that this was true, and if necessary a surveyor would be employed to verify the location of the property lines. Board Discussion It appeared to Shannon that the new structure would improve the property and make it safer for the tenants. Shannon thought the Board should approve the appeal. Ayraud agreed with Shannon. He was concerned at first due to property line and ownership issues. Ayraud agreed with the property line being six feet, eight inches, from the existing structure, making it a hardship for the lot depth. Ayraud made a motion to approve appeal number 2318 based on the hardship of a shallow lot. Breth seconded the motion. ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 5 Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2319 and 2320--Approved Address: 331 Scott Avenue Petitioner: Philippe Lindheimer Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: There is an existing garage behind the home at 331 Scott Avenue and to the east of the home at 1320 W. Magnolia Street. This existing garage straddles the lot line between the two homes. The petitioner, who is the owner of both lots, desires to expand the existing garage. Since the addition straddles the lot line in the same manner as the existing garage, a variance is required in order to reduce the required rear yard setback of 331 Scott Avenue from fifteen feet to zero feet and to reduce the required side setback of 1320 W. Magnolia Street from five feet to zero feet. The addition will be set back from Magnolia Street ten feet further than either of the two homes. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The building straddles the property line. Peter Barnes clarified the variance request stating there are two variances. On Scott Avenue, the property line goes down between the garage, and functions as the rear property line. Zoning requires a 15 feet setback from the rear of the property line. On Magnolia, the property line functions as the side lot line, and zoning requires a five foot setback. A variance has been requested to reduce the side setback of the Magnolia Street property from five feet to zero feet. The Applicant wants to build an addition coming straight up toward the street, and a few feet wider toward the Scott Avenue property. The second variance is to reduce the rear setback from the Scott Avenue rear property line from fifteen feet to zero feet. Applicant Participation: Philippe Lindheimer, owner, addressed the Board and asked if they had received his and Karen McWilliams' letter from Historic Preservation. He cares about the historic nature of his neighborhood. Originally he had a different plan, which required no variance, but it was not compatible with the historic architecture of the neighborhood. He has gone through a lot of additional work and expense and the final project amount will be a fair amount more expensive for him. His immediate neighbor to the north would benefit if he ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 6 did not expand the garage as originally planned. The variance he has requested only affects the two properties --both of which he owns. It would also assure the preservation of an old ash tree to the north of his property, over which he has a great deal of concern. Applicant Lindheimer was in touch with researchers from Comell University on structural soils. The feedback he kept receiving was that there was a reasonable chance of destroying the tree. The Applicant believed the destruction of the tree would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. He believes preservation of the landscape is one of the values that the Old Town and City Park areas present to the public to enjoy. Board Discussion for Appeal Number 2319: Ayraud commented positively regarding the appeal. He made a motion to approve appeal number 2319 based on the hardship of topography, the possibility of soil erosion, and destruction of the ash tree. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. Board Discussion for Appeal Number 2320: Ayraud made a motion to approve appeal number 2320. He did not see a hardship. The ordinance is designed to preserve the structure of the neighborhood. By the Applicant keeping the addition away from the property line, it benefits the neighborhood because it will keep unsightly or non -historic structures from the public eye. The information the Applicant provided and the letter from Historic Preservation stated that if the garage were expanded any other way, the destruction of the streetscape and the historic significance of the house would be lost. Ayraud believed that preservation is equal to or better than the current ordinance. Ayraud made a motion to approve appeal number 2320 on the above stated basis. Miscio seconded the motion. Stockover asked Peter Barnes if the motion was applied in the proper fashion in accordance with the Boards newly expanded authority. Being this was the first one the Board heard in this regard. Peter Barnes consulted with Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman. Mr. Eckman said that it was handled in an appropriate manner. Barnes stated the new and additional criteria for which the Board is able to grant. The first set of plans that that the Board saw from the petitioner showed a garage addition on the north side of the house which did not require a variance. However, since that building is over 50 years old, the Historic Preservation office had to approve any exterior alterations. At that time the Historic Preservation office worked with the Applicant to come up with better ways of tackling the problem to better preserve the character of the neighborhood and the property. The Board would have to determine whether or not expanding the existing garage, which violated the setbacks, is equal to or better than putting one on the north side of the home. Staff thought Ayraud did an adequate job when he cited specific findings referring to the letters. ZB A February 8, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Eckman clarified it is not as much as equal to or better than in a general concept but the Code says that the Board would have to find that it advances the purposes of the standard equally well or better than compliance with the standard. Eckman noted the Board also needed to make a finding no matter if the request is equally well or better than the standard or whether it is a hardship. The Board also needs to make sure there is no detriment to the public good. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2321--Denied Address: 633 Remington Street Petitioner: Lynette McClain for Beaucaire Youth Services Zone: NCB Section: 3.8.6(A) Back round: The variance would reduce the required minimum separation distance between group homes from 700 feet to 530 feet. Specifically the variance request would allow 633 Remington Street to be converted to a group home for eight high risk adolescents. This property is only 530 feet from the existing "Turning Point" group home located at 614 Mathews Street, which accomodates 20 residents. 633 Remington Street is in the NCB zoning district, wherein a group home is required to be at least 700 feet from any other group homes. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi Please see attached petitioner's letter B Before the slide presentation Peter Barnes wanted to explain to the Board and those in the audience that enclosed in board packets were seven letters the Zoning Department had received from neighboring property owners or other people who felt they have an interest in the request for a variance. Barnes gave the Board eight additional letters the Zoning Department received yesterday which staff did not have time to get to the Board before the meeting. A petition was also signed with 29 signatures. Barnes received another letter this morning that was not in the board packets. Barnes read the letter. All of the letters and the petition were in opposition to the variance. Staff Comments: The property at 633 Remington Street current use is designated as an office use. The past tenant, the Jacob Center, was a day treatment program. The whole back yard of this property is a parking area, making parking space readily available. There is a 700 foot ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 8 separation requirement between group homes in the NCB zoning district. If the variance request was approved there would only be a 530 feet separation between group homes. Turning Point at 614 Mathews is currently a group home. The alley between Mathews and Remington serves as the boundary between the NCB and the NCM zoning districts. Applicant Participation: Lynette McClain, representative for Beaucaire Youth Services (hereinafter Beaucaire), addressed the Board. She introduced herself and is the director of Beaucaire. Beaucaire has existed for about six years and she has been doing this type of work for about 35 years. Their services include day treatment services and an supervising adolescents who are on parole. Beaucaire has a facility at 406 North College Avenue and all of their treatment and counseling is given there. Beaucaire applied for and was awarded a grant by the State Department of Youth Corrections to provide residential services in a halfway house setting for youth who have been through treatment, who are on committed status; and has been through their treatment, and are returning to their community on parole. Their experience in the last six years has been that a lot of kids are homeless. The children do not have a home, nor are they able to live in a supervised setting. Most often times the children wind up going back to jail to sit there because they do not have a place to live not because they have committed any more crime. When the State informed Beaucaire that the need for a residential setting for high risk adolescents she tried various approaches to create a solution. She has been looking for a house for the past three years. Beaucaire has tried different settings from renting a home and putting four or five kids in the home in a neighborhood, to renting an apartment and hiring somebody to live with the clients. Beaucaire felt they have the necessary experience to maintain a residential setting for high risk adolescents. The grant Beaucaire received is for seven adolescents and the average age is 18 years. The Beaucaire group home will differ from Turning Point. Some differences include: the adolescents will be leaving during the day to go to work and school; there will be a strict curfew at night; and staff will be awake twenty-four hours a day. There will not be any treatment provided in the facility. The adolescents will go to 406 North College Avenue for their counseling, treatment, and other services. There will be up to three staff members there at a time. The adolescents will not be driving, alleviating any traffic concerns. The main issue and concern is density in McClain's opinion. She suggested a reduction in the current denisty. The previous use of the facility was a day treatment center where there were thirty to forty kids between the ages of twelve and eighteen visiting the facility every day. Beaucaire asked for seven kids to live in a group home setting. There will be no visitors. The adolescents will get together with their friends and mentors at other locations. This differs from Turning Point where the children are there all day, leave in a van to go to a recreation activity, and come back. Treament programs, schooling, and parent visitation occurs at the Turning Point facility as well. ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 9 Applicant McClain is unaware of any complaints from the neighbors regarding the activity that occurred at the Jacob Center. She visited the neighbors and tried to answer any questions or concerns the neighbors may have had. As far as impact, McClain does not think these two group homes are the issue with regard to impact. She believes there are a lot of other things going on in this neighborhood. One of the reasons the neighborhood is attractive to Beaucaire is that the adolescents would be anonymous. Beaucaire would be able to move in much like the 160 bed community correctional facility on Laurel. She claimed the majority of the community is unaware of the facility's prescence, and there are 160 criminals living there, but no one really notices. The Beaucaire group home would also like this anonymity as well. In regards to the high risk status of the adolescents, the Applicant says the children have been through a treatment program that is typically a year long. The developmental reasons as to why they acted out will be gone because they have grown up. The children are motivated, committed, and the parole board does not typically allow adolescents who are not safe to return to the community. The adolescents have been deemed safe and ready for emancipation. The next step for them is to learn how to live independently. The final issue was the location. Applicant McClain felt the 633 Remington Street house was a perfect fit, and she believed it would be a perfect fit for the neighborhood also. Shannon asked what types of crimes Beaucaire's clients have committed. Applicant McClain responded the clients committed crimes when they were quite young between the ages of seven and thirteen. The crimes were usually petty crimes. The clients did not follow their parole or probation requirements, which caused them to put on probation or parole. Although Beaucaire does have clients that have committed assualts (more like a school yard fight in nature) as well as those with drug addiction issues. If a child commits a heinous, violent, or severe crime, the child is generally entered into the adult system. These clients have all been committed as youth. They do not have any felonies or convictions. Ayraud asked the Applicant why having the group home at 633 Remington Street was more of a benefit rather than a detriment to the commnity. Ayraud also questioned the Applicant as to why the home could not be located somewhere else in the community. The Applicant responded she had been looking for a house for approximately three years. She felt is was necessary for the group home to be in a dense location. She failed to see an issue with regards to the proximity of Turning Point. Ayraud asked if the variance is not approved what would happen to the grant for the program if the variance was not approved. The Applicant responded that she would need to find another place and the grant would be lost for this year. She showed her concern regarding the waiting list for children to move into the group home. Miscio asked if her grant was only funded after the group home was in operation. The Applicant stated that the contract follows the number of kids. She would receive so many dollars per day per child. She will need to have the residence in functional status before the State licensing agents will come to inspect the property and give the property their seal of approval. ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 10 Eckman asked the Applicant how she was approaching her argument by hardship or the equal to or better than standard. The Applicant was unaware that she needed a hardship. She was approaching her argument from the point of equally well or better than standard due to density issues. Eckman refocused the Board. He told the Board they needed to decide whether granting the variance would be detrimental to the public good. He stated the test was whether or not the proposal as submitted would advance or protect the public interest and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. The Board needed findings to make a motion. Shannon stated that she did not think having a neighbor that is awake twenty four hours a day would benefit the neighborhood due to the high density and activity as well as the crime that has been committed in the neighborhood. Miscio asked Applicant McClain what the current use of the property is. The Applicant responded that recently it was being used as a day treatment center for adolescents much like what Beaucaire does but only for a younger group of children. The adolescents have been convicted of committing crimes and are on probation. They come to the facility for counseling. As of right now the property is vacant. It was vacated so Beaucaire could move in on the first of the month. The Applicant stated that the only difference between the prior tenant and Beaucaire is that Beaucaire would be residential. Peter Barnes clarified to the Board that the previous tenant was the Jacob Center. The property at 633 Remington Street was their office. Beaucaire has their office at 406 North College Avenue. This is where they have their day treatment, and are proposing to use this property as one of their group homes. The property has been classified as an office use. Stockover asked if they were able to treat youths there. Barnes explained that office and clinics are permitted like a doctor's office for example. Stockover asked if the use was not approved. Barnes reiterated the zone allows office uses. A certificate of occupancy was obtained. The current certificate of occupancy for the building is an office use whether it is the Jacob Center or an insurance agent. The zoning department does not categorize those types of offices differently. Shannon asked if Beaucaire wanted to put the group home in the next block if it would be allowable by Code. Barnes said that if it were 700 feet away from Turning Point it would meet code. He was unsure of exactly how far the physical location would need to be. In this location, Barnes stated, Beaucaire has a problem with the separation requirement required by Code. Barnes commented that group homes are allowed in almost every zone in the City. Different zones have different separation requirements. Miscio asked Applicant McClain how long would the kids be living there. The Applicant responded that the teens would live there an average of four to six months, and then leave to be out on their own. Some may stay for a year, but the majority of the time it would only be for four to six months. The Applicant wanted to reassure the Board the children will not be coming to stay for a week or two. ZB A February 8, 2001 Page 11 Miscio then asked if any of the homes in the past have been shut down or if the Applicant ever needed to move. The Applicant responded that she has never had any neighborhood complaints, nor have any of the homes been shut down. Miscio then asked if a more commercialized location would work. McClain stated that she would rather not seek a commercial location due to the "real home" environment they are trying to provide. She does not want to provide an institutional setting. Miscio asked the Applicant if she was involved in any other group homes that are in current operation. McClain responded that she has never had a contract for a licensed group home, although she has tried several different settings. This will be the first licensed group home that she has been involved in. Breth asked staff if Turning Point was in a different zoning district. Barnes stated the Turning Point home was in the NCM zoning district. Group homes are allowed in every zoning district in the City. The zone one is in determines the separation requirement from other group homes. Breth asked if one has different separations and distances in different zones, which one would take precedence. Bames replied the NCM zone requires group homes to be 1000 feet from any other group home. The Turning Point facility is there. By placing one in the NCB district, the property in the NCB is subject to the requirements for the NCB, which means they have to be 700 feet from any other group home facility. They are going to be closer than the 1000 feet from the Turning Point facility, but that does not make the Turning Point facility nonconforming. One distance does not take precedence over the other distance just because they are in different zones. In support of the appeal: Bill Combs of 1336 Tarryton Drive addressed the Board. He introduced himself as the President of the Board of Directors for Beaucaire. He has been involved in the project for one year. His argument was based on the separation requirements. He felt the issues for consideration was whether or not the adjacent street system is sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by the group home does the group home have onsite accommodations, for parking needs? The architectural design of the building is compatible? Combs stated the type of treatment, activities, and services proposed would be consistent with activities permitted in the zoning district. The answers to above he stated were yes. He felt the underlying issue of opposition was because the neighborhood did not like the proposed neighbors. He felt the community had an obligation to welcome the adolescents back and reintegrate them into the larger community. Rose Moon an employee at Beaucaire addressed the Board. She was concerned with the fact that Beaucaire was a non-profit organization and that money was an issue. Moon said Beaucaire has looked at other properties, but they would take a large sum of money to remodel to meet the State's standards. She understood the neighborhood's concern, but she wanted them to realize that the adolescents deserve a second chance. She wanted the opportunity to have open lines of communications with the neighbors. In her experience she has never had any problems with theft, vandalism, or complaints from the neighbors. ZBA February 8,2001 Page 12 John Carlson of West County Road 74 addressed the Board. He is the owner of 633 Remington Street. He spoke in favor of the request because it is a facility that is in a workable zone and it is available. He also addressed the issue of density and proximity. He stated that historically children have always been apart of the neighborhood through Turning Point, the Jacob Center, Centennial High School, and have not presented major problems. Jim Becker, the Executive Director at Turning Point, addressed the Board. He did not want to go on record saying he supported the appeal because he has not read the program proposal, but he does not oppose it. He addressed his concern regarding detriment to public good. He did not believe it was a detriment for the following reasons: He would like the Board to understand that when an organization like Turning Point or Beaucaire goes through the process to start a new program like this, they apply to the State. There is a group of professionals who review proposals, and make sure they are acceptable. Once a program is up and running, there are quarterly reviews of the program and quality control is there. Turning Point also runs the facility on Shields Street and has received no complaints in the seven months the facility as been there. He felt centers of this kind were a good intermediate step. The notion of detriment to the public good in the sense of safety he did not think was a fair argument because there are multiple levels of monitoring. The accountability level is also higher with a group home. Becker's second argument was based on the equal to or better than standard for the neighbors. Neighborhood impact has gone down within the last couple of months due to changes in Turning Point servicing fewer children as well as the move of the Jacob Center. He concluded by stating that there would not be any interaction between Turning Point and Beaucaire. In opposition to the appeal: John Mark of 719 Remington Street addressed the Board. His general concern was the condition of the neighborhood. He expressed his unhappiness with the request for the variance. His opinion was the Code should be kept intact because it maintains the quality of life. He felt his neighborhood was already over- burdened. Judy Lovaas of 304 East Myrtle addressed the Board. She has been a resident of this area for thirty-three and a half years. She is grateful for the role that the City has played in supporting living in a mixed -use neighborhood. She believed her neighborhood was also over -burdened, and the addition of a group home would create a negative impact. She expected the City to maintain the limit that would allow normal life to flourish and function in and among these centers. She felt when one decreased the difference in distances between family life and helping kids at risk at such an extent that they become the dominant theme of the neighborhood. Jeff Bridges of 725 Mathews Street addressed the Board. He agreed with Ms. Lovaas that the zoning regulation was set up to maintain offsets of uses. He was concerned with the overlap of the zoning districts. He felt the concentration between group homes and boarding houses was already too much. He does not want his neighborhood to become a ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 13 dumping zone for these types of facilities. He felt there were other available properties and neighborhoods that Beaucaire could have its operation. Lisa Steketee of 637 Remington Street addressed the Board. She lived next to the Jacob Center and has had issues with the center as well as the college students. She was the first one to hear of a new group home possibly coming into the neighborhood. She was upset that Ms. McClain thought she could be a good neighbor. She felt that Beaucaire would have better opportunities elsewhere. Mark Anderson of 704 Mathews Street addressed the Board. He gave several crime statistics of the neighborhood. He was concerned about the litter and responsibility of the adolescents. He would like his neighborhood to stay historically preserved. Bob Steketee of 637 Remington Street addressed the Board. He is a school teacher and works with adolescents daily. He believes unless it is a positive concentration you are going to have negative behavior developing in the neighborhood. He thinks this idea will be reinforced if the variance is granted. Carolyn Knape of 641 Remington Street addressed the Board. She worked on having the petition signed with a total of 35 signatures. She would appreciate the Boards decision to uphold the rules of the Code. Ms. Knape would like the historical landmark status of the neighborhood to be maintained. She is in the process of raising a family and is concerned about security. Other concerns she has are what types of crimes the adolescents have committed, over -burdening of the neighborhood, and density. John Schmidt, owner and operator of Go -Jo Sports, 628 S. College, addressed the Board. He is concerned with the existing negative behavior occurring in the neighborhood. He has lodged many complaints with the police department. If the variance were granted, an instant gang would be implanted into the neighborhood rather than a family type situation. According to Mr. Schmidt the neighborhood was already too fragile. Ann Alden, a business owner, addressed the Board. She has had similar problems like that of Mr. Schmidt. She is concerned for her safety and is opposed to the request. Leo McKitterick of 200 East Myrtle Street addressed the Board. He concurred with the concept that criminals coming out of prison need rehabilitation support services, but not on Remington Street. He agreed with the concerns of his fellow neighbors, but felt there was money involved for both the previous owner and the anticipated users of the property. He disagreed with the whole concept. Arvin Lovaas of 304 East Myrtle Street addressed the Board. He felt it was wrong that tax money would be used to approve an activity in violation of a zoning ordinance. Joe Knape of 641 Remington Street addressed the Board. He was concerned with the over burdening of the neighborhood as well as density issues. He met with Ms. McClain several weeks back. He is concerned that statements made between their discussions with ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 14 the Beaucaire program and the application on the variance request are contradictory. He felt Beaucaire needed a back up plan, and believed there were alternative locations. Kathy Collen of 625 Remington Street, #4, addressed the Board. She is concerned about her safety and disagreed with the less impact issue presented by the Applicant. John Thomas of 625 Remington Street, #4 addressed the Board. He stated that he cared about the neighborhood, and felt that if this notion were overturned that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Amy Martensen of 624 South College Avenue addressed the Board. She felt it would be an extreme detriment to the public good as well as being concerned for her safety. Board Discussion: Ayraud commented that he saw the group homes themselves as beneficial to the community at large. He encourages that group homes be in place because young adults who have been incarcerated are doing better when they are in this transition. He felt that every sort of construction that is built will have an impact on the community, whether it is a change in use, someone moving into a single family home, building, group home, or professional. The City council has directed an ordinance to address each of those concerns. In Ayraud's opinion, group homes have a tremendous benefit and the benefit will exist no matter where it is located in the community. What the ordinance is intended to do is to prevent or protect a subpart of the community from being over -burdened by being saturated by these detriments. City Council addressed this issue and they have determined 700 feet is the minimum amount needed to make sure that one subpart of the community is not over burdened by the impact. A distance of 530 feet violates the ordinance, and the Board has not seen how it will minimize impact on this subpart of the community. Shannon agreed with Ayraud. She felt that group homes are valid and socially positive, but one neighborhood should not bear the entire burden. Miscio questioned whether this neighborhood was a good location for the group home. He was concerned about the current concentration of group homes, and felt this request would not change the trend. Breth concurred with the other Board members. He felt the Code was set up specifically for a reason, and he would not want to bear the responsibility of setting precedence by allowing a change in the Code. Breth made a motion to deny appeal number 2321 on the basis that it is not equal to or better than the standard. Ayraud seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 15 6. APPEAL NO. 2322 -- Approved Address: 301 E. Stuart Street Petitioner: Marilyn Hartig for Trinity Lutheran Church Zone: LMN Section: 3.8.4(A) Background: The variance would allow a child care center to construct an outdoor play area fence out of chain link, rather than out of solid masonry or wood, and for a portion of it to be four feet high instead of six feet. Specifically, the variance would allow the proposed Trinity Lutheran Church Child Care Center to construct the play area fence along the south part of the property, without providing dense vegetative screening around the perimeter of the fence. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed play area will be located about 100 feet from the building. With the fenced area that far away, the staff believes it is essential to be able to visually observe the playground area. There is no other feasible location for the play area without obstructing exterior entrances. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The play area would be in the back portion of the Church. It will not be attached to the building. In the LMN zoning district there is no separation requirement between child care facilities. Peter Barnes clarified that the code required a solid six feet high fence in residential zoning district. The fence functions as a buffer for the visual and acoustic impact that child care facilities create in a residential zone. The Applicant is requesting to have an open chain link fence so that staff can better observe what is going in the play area. The Applicant is also requesting that portions of the fence be less than six feet. Applicant Participation: Marilyn Hartig representative for Trinity Lutheran Church addressed the Board. She has been involved with the study at Trinity Lutheran to provide a child care facility. The Church property was formerly Rivendell School. They have changed the use to a preschool because that seemed to be a service that the community could support and the Church could provide a ministry. At this point in time they are doing preliminary plans and getting approvals prior to the final decision. The issue with the variance is the fact that a six foot privacy fence had a lot of merit in a typical residential child care setting; but created a problem for the Church in what she deemed as a hardship. In order to provide a six foot privacy fence that would be secure for the children and staff, it would necessarily need to be attached to the building. The Church would need to enclose possibly four entrances. Secondly the six foot privacy fence would create bind spots for the director and teachers, which is not advantageous to the children. She thought a privacy fence would invite less desirables to the area. She proposed a chain link fence ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 16 that one can see through and provided constant supervision. She also suggested it would be nice to have a four foot fence on the three sides that do not parallel Spring Creek. The six foot fence would be along the creek side to protect the director and the teachers from having to retrieve balls and any other items the children may play with. The Applicant believed the lack of privacy fence would make the play area safer. Ayraud asked if the chain link fence would create the same problem with blocking entrances as a solid fence would. Applicant Hartig responded that since a variance is being requested the Church would rather have the play area to the rear of the Church rather than adjacent to it for safety reasons. The chain link fence would stand free. Mrs. Stitzel, a member of Trinity Lutheran Church, addressed the Board to show her support of the appeal. She has been a member of Trinity Lutheran Church for 41 years and is also serving on the task force looking at this potential use of the building. She felt the chain link fence was more compatible because of the park facilities use chain link fencing. Since the Church is not in a regular residential area, it should not be under the same requirement as required by Code. Board Discussion: Breth commented that he did not think there was a real problem with this variance since the property backs up to a park area, and no residences would be impacted. He was in favor. Stockover and Miscio agreed with Breth. Breth made a motion to approve appeal number 2322 for the hardship stated. Miscio seconded the motion. Ayraud was in support of the appeal, but he was concerned if the area ever became more residential he would ask for an amendment for the request. Gary Lopez informed Ayraud that it was mostly City property, so the likelihood of residential fill was unlikely. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None 7. APPEAL NO. 2323--Approved Address: 415 Mason Court, #7 Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Owner Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from five feet to zero feet along the west lot line in order to allow a new detached garage/second floor living area to be attached to the garage on lot eight, which is also at a zero foot setback. (A variance for this was approved on April 8, 1999, but has expired). ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 17 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: When the PUD was approved, it was uncertain as to the exact housing style that would be constructed. If the garages on lots seven and eight are five feet apart, then a dead space is created between the buildings, and the useable yard becomes smaller on these narrow lots. Attaching the garages creates more yard space and reduces the building mass. Staff Comments: Barnes wanted to inform the Board that this variance was approved in 1999. The variance was to reduce the side setback from five feet to zero feet in lots seven and eight. Lot eight was constructed in compliance with the variance. Lot seven was not constructed before the variance expired. Ayraud asked if anything has change since the original variance was granted. Barnes stated that nothing has changed. Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. He stated that lot eight was the finished product. Typically there is a minimum requirement of a five foot setback so that there is at least ten feet between buildings. The proposed lot line attachment would become a breeze -way that will run between the two. The variance for lot eight was for the garage and the area over the top of the garage. Applicant Participation: Dennis Sovick the owner of lot seven and the designer of both seven and eight addressed the Board. He had no additional information except that lot eight was designed to meet the standards of the variance request for lot seven; and some problems would arise if the variance were not extended. Stockover asked the Applicant how soon he was planning to build. The Applicant stated that they already had the permit for the house, and the garage will be breaking ground within a few weeks. Breth asked if there was a reason the garage could not be moved to the other side. The Applicant responded that it would effect the design of the house on lot seven. Board Discussion: Ayraud commented since nothing has changed since the variance was previously granted, it seemed arbitrary to say that conditions have now changed. It would not be appropriate for the Board to change their mind for no apparent reason. He felt the Board should remain consistent. Ayraud made a motion to approve appeal number 2323 for the hardship stated. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski and Stockover. Nays: None ZBA February 8,2001 Page 18 Board member Shannon left the meeting at 11:30 a.m. 8. APPEAL NO. 2324 - Approved Address: 3401 S. College Avenue Petitioner: Shaw Signs, Contractor Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(G)(1) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required setback for a new twelve foot tall, fifty-two square feet per face ground sign from fifteen feet to three feet. Specifically, the variance would allow a new "Honda" ground sign to be located three feet from the east line along the frontage road, resulting in an actual setback from the frontage road of seventeen feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed sign cannot be moved further back because of the parking lot. The front property line configuration is unique in that it does not follow the curve in the frontage road. If it did, then a variance would probably not be necessary. Additionally, the frontage road separates the lot from College Avenue, resulting in reduced visibility from the main vehicular street in front of the property. William Stockover bowed out due to conflict of interest. Martin Breth took the responsibility of acting as chairperson. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The Honda dealership adjoins the GM dealership, and is next door to the Saturn dealership. The proposed sign will be seventeen feet from the frontage road. There is a jog in the road due to the widening of the median that runs between College and the frontage road. Barnes researched the Saturn property to see where their property line was. The frontage road in front of Saturn does not curve, that happens in front of Markley Motors. The property line in the Saturn dealership is right at the curb of the sidewalk. Applicant partici ation: Marie Locke, a representative for Shaw Sign, addressed the Board. She wanted to add that the reason there is a jog in the road in front of Markleys was from when the City acquired that land from the Markleys there was a tree there the City arborist wanted to save. This resulted in a smaller front property line for Markley. She requested a three foot setback, (even though physically it is a seventeen foot setback from the frontage) but in this case a fifteen foot setback is what is required by code. ZBA February 8, 2001 Page 19 In support of the appeal: Gene Markley addressed the Board. He is the owner of the property involved and part owner of the dealership involved. When the property was built it was in the County. He landscaped all over the place. He remembered the frontage road configuration very well. Markley remember the City arborist wanted to save the cottonwood tree. An early freeze killed the cottonwood and has since been removed. Honda has been adamant about identifying their product. The only place he could put his sign was back in the lot where it would not be visible. He needed the sign to be seen. Board Discussion: Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2324 for the hardship stated. Ayraud seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, and Pawlikowski. Nays: None 9. OtherBusiness Barnes mentioned that the Board needed to get together with their council liasion, Karen Weikenaut in April for the annual breakfast meeting. The meeting time will need to be changed to 8:45 a.m. Eckman stated that staff will provide the Board with a list of findings regarding the equal to or better than standard that the Board can choose from, agree or disagree with. This is being done for the Planning and Zoning Board as well. He stated that it was necessary to nail people down with what they are arguing either a hardship or equal to or better than. Barnes said the Board needed to make a finding of how come it is equal to or better than or why it is a hardship. The applicants can have both or one or the other. Meeting adjourned 11:48 a.m. .;, .0 William Stockover, Chairperson / Q -i . "3 CL" Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator / cap J­ )-L' u, . I h L'3Ili 11 li Hello Peter Barnes, Per our conversations — I would like to review the issues and reasons around the variance request that I am making in the attached packet. I met with Karen McWilliams in the Historic Preservation department concerning our proposed addition and attached garage. Our initial request was to place a new garage attached to the north of the property. This would have been in compliance with all zoning and no variance request was necessary. We were also struggling with the building techniques and soil preparation in order to preserve a very mature green Ash tree that is to the extreme north of our property. With all of the suggestions from the forestry department as well as Cornell University's Urban Structural Soil research — there was significant risk of losing this tree which we are trying hard to avoid. The Historic Preservation department informed us that they did not want us to build the garage attached to the north of our house. They feel that this compromises the Craftsman/Bungalow architectural style that our house represents and have asked us to place the garage to the back of our property. They feel this is much more characteristic of the original neighborhood and would serve the public significantly over our initial proposal. This also assures that there is no risk to the Ash tree in question. We are very eager to work with the historic preservation of Fort Collins, and value the input in order to preserve the historic architecture and keep the character of Fort Collins in the Old Town area. In order to do this, we are requesting the proposed variance attached and described here. The alternative to our original request is to put a garage on the Magnolia side of the property. We are very sensitive to keeping this side of the property looking very attractive because this street is a major public route to City Park and viewed often by the public. To this end, we feel that an additional garage adjacent to the current garage would be a real eye sore to the public. This has led us to the alternative of enlarging the existing garage that is shared by both of our properties - 331 Scott Ave. and 1320 W. Magnolia. Our intention is to lengthen the existing garage by an additional 12 ft forward and an additional 5 ft. wider to the East. This has several advantages to the other alternatives. The garage remains a separate structure more characteristic of such structures historically. The additional 12ft of garage still maintains a substantial setback from both properties keeping it well away from the public access -way and street by about 46ft. This also ensures that all of the large trees on the property are preserved which was a major concern with the previous location to the North of our house. In order to do this expansion we will have to obtain a variance of the backyard setback of 331 Scott (15ft) as well as the side yard setback of 1320 W. Magnolia (5ft). Since the current garage is built on the middle of the property line, we are only extending the existing structure along that same property line. The variance request effects only our two properties and no more so then is already the case since the garage sits on the property line. All of the street and front yard setbacks are generously met and the overall change to the existing situation will probably go unnoticed by most people. We continue to work with the Historic Department to assure that the new fagade of the garage is historically characteristic of the two properties. Kind Regards, Philippe & Vesna Lindheimer Petitioner's Letter A _I � JOI i Peter Barnes City of Fort Collins Zoning Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Beaucaire Youth Services 406 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970)224-2083 FAX (970)224-3508 January 22, 2001 RE: Request to modify code 3.8.6A of NCB Zone to allow 633 Remington to be a small halfway house (or group home) within 700 feet of another group home. Dear Peter. Beaucaire Youth Services is a non-profit organization that provides residential child care and day treatment services to delinquent adolescents and young adults in Fort Collins. Beaucaire has been providing day treatment services to youth for six years and has served over 170 area youth in that time. There is a growing need for services that address homeless and emancipation issues for high risk adolescents. In order to accomplish this we are requesting a modification of code 3.8.6 (A) because this property is within 700 feet of a Residential Treatment Center known as Turning Point. Turning Point serves about 44 young adults in their facility, 20 residential youth that live on grounds and 24 youth in day treatment. The 633 Remington residence is currently in use as an office for Jacob Family Services. They serve approximately 30 to 40 youth, between the ages of 12 and 18, in a given day. We are requesting a certificate of occupancy approving this property for use as a group home (halfway house) for a maximum of 8 older youth (average age of 18), much less than the current use. We believe that this is an acceptable modification and should be granted according to Modification of Standards 110 because it is not detrimental to the public good and doesn't impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Our reasoning is as follows: A. The modification is not detrimental to the public good. 1. The youth we will serve are all committed youth, between the ages of 15 and 20 years of age, who have received a thorough assessment, a lengthy (6 to 12+ months) treatment and a successful discharge from a residential treatment facility. They have been assessed to be a eligible for a community placement in the Beaucaire Transition Center because they have been assessed and determined to be at a low -risk status that assures that their placement in the community is appropriate and will not be a danger to the community. All residents will be under strict zero -tolerance supervision 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Any serious behavior problems will be severely consequenced with the option of the extreme punishment of detainment in a locked facility. The residents are well aware of their committed status and are typically present themselves as very motivated to be successful in a community placement such as the Beaucaire halfway house program. 2. The profile of young adults that are placed in community transition centers is usually that they are older adolescents with an average age of 18 who do not have a family support system that is beneficial to their success, but who have a need to become independent by the end of their commitment. Their profiles are usually serious young adults who present as generally emotionally stable and in need of support, supervision and counseling that an average youth would receive in a family setting. 3. The definition of a "Group Home" in 3.8.6 Group Home Regulations does not clarify major differences between our program and the existing Residential Treatment Center known as Turning Point. Turning Petitioner's Letter B Point has 20 youth betwee the ages of 12 and 18 living on the propem- ^4 hours per day, seven days per week and another 24 that ..dnd day treatment at this same property 5 u. , s per week, totaling 44 young adults at one property. We are looking at providing residential services only to a total of eight older adolescents, between the ages of 15 and 20, at the 633 Remington site with no other day treatment services being provided to any additional youth at this site. (We provide day treatment services at 406 N. College Avenue.) The population that Beaucaire would serve is somewhat different than those at Turning Point because the youth at the Beaucaire Center would be working and attending school out in the community at least 40 hours per week. They would be attending regular public schools, colleges and/or universities and working full or part-time in local businesses. They will be paying rent and preparing their own meals. They will be budgeting their income and saving to move into their own apartments. The average length of stay at the halfway house will be 4 to 6 months and they will be in the program for up to 12 months, and living independently (on "non-residential" status) for 6 to 8 months. 4. The number of youth is not large enough to substantiate a measurable negative impact to the community or to the neighborhood. Eight residents is less than the average number of residents in the average household in this area and substantially less than the 30 to 40 youth who frequent the present business, Jacob Center on a daily basis. The majority of households are rentals housing college students or commercial retail services or office buildings. 5. Residents in this neighborhood have had little or no problems in the past several years associated with living near to either the Jacob Center or Turning Point. Crimes committed in this neighborhood have not been committed by residents or been a result of either of these youth programs. Typically clients who decide to re -offend or run from their placement go far away from their placement and do not remain in the neighborhood. 6. This plan will protect public interest because it will function like a large family in a small halfway house type setting. The other Group Home, Turning Point, that is within 700 feet, is a Residential Treatment Center, using a medical model of in-house treatment. The young adults in the Beaucaire program will have household chores, recreational activities, curfews, and behavioral expectations. They will be able to come and go at their leisure much as a family or roommate would. We do not feel that the services we are providing are the same as the Turning Point Center at 615 Matthews Street- B. The modification does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. 1. Article 1.2.2 (C) of the Land Use Code states that one of the purposes of the Land Use Code is "fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services." Our proposal does not negatively impact this purpose because adolescents that will be living at 633 Remington will be efficiently and economically utilizing the transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services because they will be centrally located to downtown and can easily access the bus routes from this location. None of the residents will be allowed to drive a car, there will be a maximum of 3 staff on duty, no visitors allowed and little traffic in and out of the facility other than the residents.. 2. Article 1.2.2 (F) of the Land Use Code states that another one of the purposes of the Land Use Code is "encouraging patterns of land use which decreases the trip length of automobile travel and encourages trip consolidation." Our proposal does not negatively impact this purpose because young adults that will reside at 633 Remington will be able to walk to school, to our day treatment office at 406 N. College Avenue, to the bus station. If they are unable to ride the bus or walk, they will be transported by a Beaucaire staff member in a "car pool" manner. 3. Article 1.2.2 (I) of the Land Use Code states that another one of the purposes of the Land Use Code is "minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development." Our proposal would reduce the current impact to the neighborhood because the property at 633 Remington is currently in use as a day treatment center for delinquent and high risk youth since 1989 with at least 30 youth coming and going daily and evenings for group ounseling, staffings and other activities. 4. Article 1.2.2 (M) or aie Land Use Code states that another one of the purposes of the Land Use Code is "insuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods." Our proposal does not negatively impact this purpose because we will not be structurally changing any part of 633 Remington because it was built for it's intended use in a zone that was intended for this use. It was zoned as a group home in 1984, and so is already structurally efficient. We will need to remodel the kitchen minimally and add one shower in the basement. It's homey character is an asset to our program goal of providing a nurturing environment to youth. C. Modification will substantially address important community needs specified and expressly defined and described in the City's comprehensive plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution. 1. There are no other residential options available for this population in Fort Collins. This population is also ineligible for public housing assistance because of their age. The granting of this project would substantially address the important community need of serving adolescents that are having problems. It is a city-wide concern having young adults in our community that are struggling with growing -up. For some young adults, if their developmental needs are not addressed they usually go out and create problems in the community until their behavior has to be addressed. 2. This project meets the Comprehensive Plan of Housing, Policy HSG-1.5 "Special Needs Housing" for young adults that would most likely re -offend and enter the adult correctional system if they did not receive the residential support services offered by the Beaucaire program. There are no other such services offered or available in the community. Past Beaucaire clients who had no supported living assistance were held in detention until their commitment time ran out and then were simply released to the streets. 3. Appendix A of the City of Fort Collins Consolidated Plan states that one of the Key Issues is "Expansion of homeless services in the community —in particular— prevention services, rehabilitation services and services for the homeless families." In the section on "Needs of homeless and persons threatened with homelessness, it is stated that there is a need for additional assistance. Young adults that run away from home or are kicked out of their homes become threatened with homelessness if there are not services to address their developmental issues. It is also stated that based on discussions with agencies directly involved with providing services to the homeless and in assessment of homeless data provided by these groups, there is a need in Fort Collins for "coordination of treatment, counseling, training and education programs and services to address the prevention of homelessness." Our project will coordinate the community services that are' available to our adolescent clients who are threatened with homelessness. 4. Appendix A of the City of Fort Collins Consolidated Plan also states that facilities that are currently working with young adults that are threatened with homelessness are not able to keep up with the demand. There are currently no local programs for this population. Youth who are homeless in the Beaucaire Day Treatment program are placed back in jail and wait out their parole time, only to be released with no more options than were available prior to their commitment. These are the youth who continue to commit crimes, demand health care, welfare services and are a drain on our community because the supports that they need are too few and too late. I have attached a brief overview of the residential transition center program and a brochure describing our current services. Thank you in advance for your continued assistance consideration of this project. If you have any further questions regarding this project, or need any further information, please feel free to contact me at the letterhead address or phone. Since ly, Lynette G. McClain, PhD BEAUCAIRE YOUTH SERVICES Residential Transition Center - Program Overview Currently, Beaucaire provides a variety of program services to youth and their families including adolescent day treatment services, therapeutic and offense -specific counseling groups, drug/alcohol counseling groups, intensive parole supervision, vocational training, medication management, life -skills and emancipation training, mentoring services, and tutoring services. The range of program services provided to each youth and their family is unique to each client and is tailored to his or her specific needs and modified as their needs change throughout their placement. The majority of clients are referred for intensive treatment and supervision while they reintegrate back into the community after residing in a secure treatment facility. They are typically in the Beaucaire program for a period of six to twelve months and an average of nine months. The Beaucaire program has been quite effective with juvenile delinquents who have been diagnosed with multiple disorders including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, addictions, learning disabilities, and mental health and behavioral disorders. Beaucaire coordinates services with other human services agencies in the community for specialized treatment and/or rehabilitation. The Intensive Offender Community -Based Treatment and Transition Program will focus on the following Outcome Objectives. The Beaucaire Youth Services Intensive Offender Community -Based Treatment and Transition Program has been offered a contract by the State of Colorado, Department of Youth Corrections to provide a staff -secure and community -based treatment for committed youth as they transition back into the community. The model described below is structured enough to provide daily contact with a comprehensive array of services, yet, it is flexible enough to meet the unique needs and the varying circumstances for each youth. Beaucaire Youth Services proposes to provide staff -secure residential supervision and support services to male and female adolescents between the ages of 15 and 20 needing specialized structure and assistance as they successfully transition from secure facilities and treatment facilities to an independent living status. The target population will be youth who are committed to the supervision of the Colorado Department of Human Services and are in need of transitional residential community -based support services for an average of 4 to 12 months. The proposed treatment program will house 8 adolescent males and/or female residents in the Northeast region. The services that are currently provided to non-residential clients would be included in residential services that are described below. 1. Clients will reside in a staff -secure transition center a minimum of 4 to 8 months prior to emancipation into the community and will work through higher to lower levels of supervision as they experience success in the program. 2. The Beaucaire program will provide weekly issue specific support services to clients and Family members. Each client and their family will have a case manager and one or more paraprofessional coaches or mentors who will assist clients to build skills and competencies to become responsible citizens in the community. 3. The Beaucaire program will provide coordination and direction in educational and employment planning and development. All primary clients will be enrolled in a full-time educational/vocational program and will be required to participate in a minimum of 40 hours per week in a combination of work, education, and therapeutic activities. 4. The Beaucaire program will provide weekly therapeutic services to clients and family members through a combination of individual, family, and group meetings for the purpose of promoting offender accountability to their victims and to their community, offense specific follow-up treatment, substance abuse treatment, and emancipation skills. S. The Beaucaire program will provide supervision and support services a minimum of 10 hours per week and a maximum of 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 6. Beaucaire will provide supervised apartment living as needed to youth as an added support to transition from a staff secure setting to an emancipation status.