Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/18/1987• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MAY 18, 1987 The rcxjnlar meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6.33 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang (arriving at 6:37 p.m.), and Bernie Strom. Board members who attended the work session on May 15, 1987, included Don Crews, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, and Dave Edwards. Excused were Linda Lang, Sharon Brown, Tim Dow, and Sanford Kern. Staff members present at the Board meeting included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Gail Ault and Renee Joseph. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Planning Director, Tan Peterson, reviewed the Consent Agenda noting staff was requesting several items be pulled. Pulled by staff were item 9) #17-87 Amendment to Ponderosa Park PUD - Preliminary, and items 21 and 22) #21-87 & 21-87A Taft Canyon First Annexation and Zoning and #22-87 & 22-87A Taft Canyon Second Annexation and Zoning. Interested parties also pulled items 2 and 3) #57-86E Sunstone Village PUD, Phases 2 & 3 - Prelimi- nary, #57-86F Sunstone Village PUD, Phase 2 - Final, and item 12) #40-79F • Mountain Range Subdivision - Preliminary. Item 6) #25-81H Regency Park PUD, Phase 1 -Final, was continued to the June 22 meeting. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda were 1) Minutes of the April 20, 1987 meeting, 4) #25-811 Villages at Harmony West - Amended Master Plan, 5) #25-81G Regency Park R1D of Villages at Harmony West - Revised Preliminary, 7) #3-87C Oak Ridge Estates Subdivision - Final, 8) #110-79F South Glen PUD 3rd Filing -Amended Preliminary, 10) #13-82AB Oak Ridge Business Park PUD 8th Filing -Preliminary and Final, 11) #13-82AC Oak Ridge Business Park PUD 9th Filing -Preliminary, 13) #116-80A Bank Center Square - Kelly Moore Paints PUD -Amended Preliminary and Final, 14) #13-82X Oak Ridge Village PUD, 3rd Fil- ing - Final, 15) #13-82Y Oak Ridge Village PUD, 4th Filing - Final., 16) #13-82Z Oak Ridge Village PUD, 5th Filing - Final, 17) #71-84B Alta Vista Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary and Final, 18) #9-82S Scuthridge Greens, Fairway Five PUD, Tracts D & F - Final, 19) #65-820 Fairbrooke III Subdivision - Final, 20) #64-86 & 64-86A East Vine 8th Annexation and Zon- ing, and 23) #27-87 The Point PUD, Terry Points Estates - County Refer- ral. Board Member O'Dell moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Member Kern seconded. Motion carried 7-0. SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, Phases 2 & 3 - Preliminary - #57-86E SUNSDONE VILLAGE PUD, Phase 2 - Final - #57-86F Staff member Ted Shepard gave project description. Glenn Stephens, repre- senting the applicant, indicated he was available to answer any questions. r� U Planning & Zoning Board lutes May 18, 1987 page 2 Frank Iancaster, 2313 Artic Fox Drive, Fox Meadows resident, was concerned about the landscaping, grading and elevations, and lights which might shine into the neighborhood. Since the lights would be an intrusion he would like to see berming. Mr. Stephens indicated they had been working to provide screening. Phase 3 would most affect the neighborhood and at final the landscaping plan would reflect the screening. Chairman Crews noted the Board would check the landscaping at final. Ted Shepard stated City Storm Drainage would be responsible for maintanence of the area and landscaping would need to be clustered for ease at mowing. Member Kern mimed to approve Sunstone Village PUD, Phases 2 & 3-Prelimi- nary and Sunstone Village PUD, Phase 2 - Final. Member Edwards seconded and motion carried 7-0. AjWMKW TD pONDEROSA PARK PUD - Preliminary - #17-87 Debbie deBesche gave staff description of amended request for 20 detached patio homes. Dick Rutherford, representing John Martin, owner, stated he was available to answer questions. Mrs. Patricia A. Hoffman, owner Skyline Mobile Hone Park, section to the east of the proposed project, had several major concerns. The original application in 1978 was for four phases. Phase 1 ran into financial diffi- culty and was not completed until 1983 and the open space had not yet been completed. The open space is currently weeds and Canadian thistle and very undesirable. She has talked with the City who indicated no future permits would be issued until this phase was finished. She was also concerned about Phase 2 which cuts out all access to the open active area by removing a sidewalk and closing off access in two other locations. She reiterated that a developer should not be allowed to start the next phase without first completing Phase 1. Mrs. deBesche indicated there was a diagram in the packet showing approxi- mately a 20 foot open space area. The original landscape plan calls for 20 trees and there are currently at least that many plus several plantings. Staff felt there was not enough traffic generated to the open area to require a sidewalk. Mrs. Hoffman stated that, because the plan was approved with the sidewalk, the sidewalk should not be arbitrarily deleted. She also claimed the open space area was nothing but weeds and their concern was that the next phase would also contain a similar weedy area. Mrs. deBesche noted all open areas are in native grasses. The site is mowed to about four inches and some of the neighboring lots have even incorporated the open space into their own lawn. E .Planning & Zoning BoatoMinutes • May 18, 1987 page 3 Mrs. Hoffman felt nothing had been mowed and nothing was in the open space but weeds. Member Dow asked if any administrative changes had been filed on the pro- ject. Mrs. deBesche indicated landscaping requirements were in the development plan. Staffs feeling is that the only noncanpliance is the missing side- walk. Mrs. Hoffman added that the City had received several letters addressing these points and hoped the Board was aware of these. Dick RutherFord explained this project was on the north half of the origi- nal PUD. The open area is Tract E and the storm water detention pond. Tract E currently has horses and the weeds are not extremely high. In the new plan the sidewalk circles the development allowing access to the green areas. This sidewalk is an added sidewalk. Mr. Martin is the owner of the north half of the original PUD while Mr. Betz awns the south half. Member Lang asked for clarification on how the handout related to the orig- inal PUD and Mrs. deBesche explained the four phases noting the project tonight is for Phases 3 and 4. Phase 1 is the only developed phase, how- ever, some improvements have been installed and these will meet code by final plan review. Mrs. Hoffman presented Member Dow with a large original landscape plan. Mr. Rutherford indicated much of Mrs. Hoffman's concerns were with Mr. Betz's property and went on to explain a walk would be eliminated on the south side of the Martin project. Member Dow asked if the applicant would be willing to add the previously proposed sidewalk and Mr. Rutherford replied they would if the City really felt it was an integral part of the plan. Mrs. Hoffman felt the agreement was binding on future owners and no excep- tions should be made. If the open space was not completed the bond should not have been refunded to Mr. Betz. I£ the developer doesn't perform the City is liable. Member Edwards noted he had been unaware of any opposition but now felt same issues were unresolved and suggested tabling the item. Member Kern seconded stating a good share of the material hadn't reached the Board until this evening and he hadn't reviewed it. Member Brawn requested an opinion from the City Attorney. • Mr. Rutherford stated a neighborhood meeting had been held and these items had not been part of the discussion. The developer felt he was ready to proceed on the item and it would not be fair to table it at this time. Planning & Zoning Board nutes May 18, 1987 page 4 Mrs. Hoffman indicated objections had been raised at the neighborhood meet- ing as well as the letters written to the City. Paul Eckman, City Attorney, noted the applicant was entitled to a decision if he desired it. Board could impose conditions on the project as: 1) Sidewalk, Phase 1 - should this be installed? relocated? 2) Phasing Agree- ment - should this be amended to allow Phases 3 and 4 ahead of Phase 2? 3) Phase 1 - is it complete? Landscaping appears to be the primary issue as well as location of mounds of dirt. These items as well as who the owner of the property is could be resolved. If the common space is awned by another party as Mrs. Hoffman believes this could be delayed until final submittal. Member O'Dell asked when new ownership occurred and Mr. Rutherford indi- cated some years ago. Mr. Martin owns the north half of the PUD and Paul Betz owns Phase 2 and the open space in Phase 1. John Martin, owner of Phases 3 and 4, stated he had tried hard to comply with the City's requirements and felt it unfair to keep him from developing the property. Mr. Betz could conceivably wait ten years before developing his Phase 2. Member O'Dell concurred but felt it would be to Mr. Martin's advantage to have the open space properly resolved. Mr. Martin explained he had no say in Phase 2. Member O'Dell asked if Mr. Martin intended for the open area in his half of Tract E to be active space with swings, etc. and Mr. Martin responded it would be rowed native grasses. Chairman Crews asked if the sidewalk would be built. Mr. Martin replied there was access on the east side of the project. Member Dow felt the issue was whether conditions of a prior PUD would apply to this tract. He thought the project should be approved with conditions addressing the items in questions. If the former agreement was binding additional requirements could be added; however, the applicant should have a decision tonight. Chairman Crews reminded the Board of the motion to table. Mr. Martin also reiterated his desire for a decision tonight. Member Edwards asked that his earlier motion be rescinded and requested staff and legal council to formulate some conditions. Member Kern also agreed to withdraw his second. Spike Hoffman, Patricia Hof.fman's son, added the biggest problem was not Mr. Martin but the contract saying Phase 1 needed to be canpleted prior to other development. Member Lang asked if the sidewalk was a Phase 1 item. ' Planning & Zoning BcG Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 5 . Mr. Eckman noted the drawings show the sidewalk in Phase 1 and it is defi- nitely not completed. Landscaping may be installed. Responsibility for completion needs to be adequately addressed. Member Brown asked what had happed to the bond. Mr. Eckman stated First Interstate had no record of the bond which was ini- tially a Certificate of Deposit which expired in 1980. Phase 1 improve- ments needed to be completed to the City's satisfaction and whether it was appropriate to juggle the phasing needed to be resolved. Member Brown questioned whether Mr. Martin could be held responsible for improvements on land that was not his. Mr. Eckman felt that was a diffi- cult question; h(wever, the agreement applied to the entire parcel. Mr. Martin purchased the property subject to the conditions of the parcel but the City should work with him. Mrs. deBesche interjected the bond covered the landscaping only and did not apply to the sidewalk. Member O'Dell questioned who was responsible for the open area. Mrs. deBesche believed there was once a homeowner's association but that it no longer existed. Mrs. O'Dell asked what the City could do. • Mrs. deBesche indicated site and landscape covenants normally cover this. Member O'Dell felt Mr. Martin should not be responsible; perhaps the people who lived there, the original owner or original applicant. Mrs. deBesche added City Manager Steve Burkett responded in a June 24, 1986, letter that the landscaping was installed. Member Dow moved to approve the Amendment to Ponderosa PUD with three con- ditions: 1) Under the existing four phase plan a legal questions had been raised and needed to be examined and resolved, 2) Staff needed to recom- mend to the Board whether Phases 1 through 4 should be modified to acoonr modate requirements, and 3) as part of the review, status of current ameni- ties as sidewalk and landscaping needed to be reviewed. Member O'Dell sec- onded. Mrs. Hoffman questioned what happens when a homeowner's association folds and no one takes care of the property. Some information also was not available to the new planners and how can original PUD's be properly reviewed to canpliance. Her major concern was to have the weeds down and someone to take care of the open area. Chairman Crews thanked the audience for input. 0 Planning & Zoning Boart inutes i May 18, 1987 page 6 Member Brown asked if motion included access to the open space. Member Dow said it was not intended to require completion of the sidewalk but that it be looked into. Member Edwards thanked Member Dow for his assistance in stating the motion. Motion to approve with conditions carried 7-0. MOUNTAIN RANGE SUBDIVISION - Preliminary-#40-79F Member Edwards noted a perceived conflict of interest on this item and abstained from the vote. Staff member Ted Shepard gave staff description indicating it was a use by right. Mark Schulz, 4255 Westshore Way, Harmony Cove, adjacent to this develop- ment, had a couple concerns. He questioned the location of the church and whether he would have a parking lot in his backyard, and what would happen to the 50 or so prairie dogs currently residing on the lard. Mr. Shepard showed slides of the area pointing out the approximate location of the church stating a curb cut would be on Breakwater and it would be under 40 feet in height. Mr. Schulz asked if it would be across from the Presbyterian church. Dick Rutherford, representing the applicant, stated the site plan for the church was not developed but was able to outline on the plat the approxi- mato site. He believes the church would be situated on the north because of existing utilities. Mr. Schulz stated his first question had been answered and what would hap- pen to the animals. He didn't want them in his backyard. He inquired if he could stay in touch with the progress on this item. Mr. Shepard stated there was no City policy but this should be resolved by final. Chairman Crews stated he would be notified. Member Brown asked if there would be a traffic problem Sunday mornings with two churchs' in such close proximity. Mr. Shepard noted a traffic impact study would be required when the permit was requested. Traffic would be funneled off the collector street onto a local street and, yes, there may be a bit of a traffic problem. Member Kern moved to approve Mountain Range Subdivision. Member Lang sec- onded. Motion carried 7-0. , Planning & Zoning B0 Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 7 • TAFT CANYON FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #21-87, 21-87A TAFT CANYON SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #22-87, 22-87A Member Dow indicated a conflict of interest on these two items and he would be refraining from the discussion and vote. Ken Waido gave staff description noting two letters had been received May 14 from property owners in the area: Mr. & Mrs. Rinne expressed concern with the design of the subdivision streets, access and safety. Since this did not deal with the annexation issue the letter was forwarded to the County Commissioners. A letter from Thomas Fay expressed concern over the City's involuntary annexation of two 10-foot wide lots on the periphery of this subdivision. Mr. Waido explained the City agreed not to involuntarily annex Taft Canyon prior to March 1, 1991. John Sample, 4204 Trowbridge, stood up and indicated his opposition to the annexations. He was on a fixed income and felt improvement costs would impose a hardship, building permit prices would rise, property would be harder to sell. Mr. Waido explained the infrastructure would not require upgrading, the sub- division could retain its present water and sewer arrangement unless the residents wanted to upgrade or if sanitary systems failed and the health department required upgrade. At that time a special assessment district • could be formed. Building permit costs should not affect market pricing. Davis Fields, 4328 Picadilly, felt the City and developer had agreed to annexing a funny lot to hinder the subdivisions ability to remain in the County. The implications of this proposal should have been explained more fully in the letter. Mr. Waido pointed out these two annexations will not create an enclave as there is an additional 3/4 mile of additional perimeter needed. Mr. Fields indicated he understood the City's intend. Mr. Waido went on to explain the City and the County created the Urban Growth Agreement, of which Taft Canyon was a part, and wanted to annex the UGA as soon as the properties were eligible. The County's responsibility of providing urban services (road maintenance and police protection) would then be released. Member Edwards added that if Mr. Fields' concerns were not adequately addressed the Board was merely making a recommendation to City Council and he could discuss this with Council. Member Crews felt two motions would be required on this item. Member Strcm moved to approve Taft Canyon First Annexation and Zoning, • Member O'Dell seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Brown moved to approve Taft Canyon Second Annexation and Zoning, Planning & Zoning Boars inures May 18, 1987 page 8 Member O'Dell seconded. Motion carried 7-0. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL '88 and JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL '90 - Preliminary-#20-87 Joe Frank gave staff description of this 30-acre site. George Galida, project architect, explained the project noting the elemerr tary school should be completed by August 1988 and the Junior High School by August 1990. There would be two building with recreation facilities. A footpath to the elementary school, 56 parking spots which could also be used for the adjacent future park, landscaping similar to the Werner Ele- mentary in Fossil Creek, and the elementary school would handle approxi- mately 550 children. The junior high was still in the conceptual stages but there would be parking for approximately 85. Staffing at the elemen- tary should range between 35-40 at normal capacity and for the junior high approximately 55 staff. Member O'Dell asked about parking on Seneca and whether it would be allowed for school functions. Mr. Frank indicated Seneca was a collector street and the design allows parking if it remains two lane. Beattie Elementary is a similar situation and parking is allowed there. Mr. Galida stated the two schools would be able to share parking on special occassions. Chairman Crews asked about the number of busses. Mr. Galida could give no accurate projections but guessed three or four for the elementary school and five to seven for the junior high. The number might fluctuate during the lifetime of the schools as the number of walk-in students charged. Mr. Frank concluded that the site was excellent for the project, the street system appeared adequate although there may be some concerns regarding the construction of Seneca to the north and Troutman should it be extended. Staff was recommending approval. Kathleen Harris, 3842 Crescent Drive, Imperial Estates, was concerned about the street plan for the overall area and the extention of Westfield Drive. With two schools and a potential shopping center would result in a concen- tration of traffic on Westfield Drive if it was the only access. Mr. Frank indicated considerable long-range planning had been done on this and surrounding areas. In approximately 1981-82 discussion with Imperial Estates West residents occurred and the need for two access ways had been evaluated. It was felt Westfield Drive would be the best through street since it bordered the neighborhood park but was not a straight shot though to Taft Hill Road. He added the street extensions were not a part of tonight's proposal. Kathleen Harris didn't want to turn Westfield into a collector street. • Planning & zoning Bo* Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 9 Member Dow noted the project was cmnsistant with the City goals and objec- tives. He added the School District was not required to go through the r9oand but it was commendable that it had. Member Dow moved to approve Elementary School '88 and Junior High Sdiool '90 -Preliminary. Member Lang seconded. Motion carried 7-0. MORNING STAR GROUP HOME - 3012 SOUTHMIOOR OOURT - #19-87 Debbie deBesche gave staff description of request for 2,400 square foot group home to house 5 elderly persons. Chairman Crews made a few points. 1. Group homes are appropriate at this site. 2. Covenants are private agreements and not relevant. 3. State statute permits group hones in any city zone. Three criteria: 1. Group hones are licensed by government agencies; size must be consis- tant. 2. Board can place conditions on group hone. 3. Group hones cannot be overly located in one area. Debbie deBesche commented that there were 5 residents and 2 staff members. • Larry Scott read a brief statement. He explained the group hone first opened in 1985. He found a second home on Southmoor Ct. He stated he offers supportive care in a family -like setting. He mentioned the neigh- bors at Resthaven were aware of the hone for 18 months and have nothing but praise for the hone. He also indicated that no canplaints were filed in the past year until the neighborhood meeting. Susan Peterson, Director Official on Aging, stated that the group home is a viable option. She stated that there are 21 boarding care homes in Larimer County. Member Edwards inquired if the office on aging participates in the licens- ing process. Susan Peterson indicated the State Department licenses all homes over three or more residents. Individuals from the state office take care of this, but do not participate. Our department is called upon for reviews as we provide them through the Omsbudsmen Program. Member Dow asked Mr. Scott to confirm his understanding of the conditions in the staff recommendation and if Mr. Scott concurred with them. Mr. Scott indicated that he did indeed concur with the conditions. • Mark Hogg stated that he owned the property. He moved out a year ago. He described the house and its surroundings. Planning & Zoning Board .inutes May 18, 1987 page 10 Debbie deBesche stated the staff has recommended approval. Staff has found that the size and appearance of the hone is consistant with the general character of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott has applied for licensing from the Colorado Department of Health. The license includes the following require- ments: building and fire safety, operator personal requirements, service, medication, and residents rights. The hone may not be located within a third mile to another group home unless an physical barrier is present. Staff does have conditions on the approval; there are five. These include: 1. Five persons 72 years of age or older, 2. Two staff members or caretakers, 3. Elderly persons may not drive or store automobiles on property, 4. No exterior changes to the hone except for facial changes, 5. Approval of group hone will not be transferable and will terminate upon conveyance or lease of property to others. Member Edwards asked Mr. Scott about the fifth condition. Member Edwards was concerned that the State can say approval goes with the operator. He asked staff to clarify the fifth condition. Mr. Eckman commented that there is no authorization for this condition, but since the applicant has agreed to it, we feel that we can examine the oper- ators of the home. Therefore, we feel that this is a legitimate condition to impose. Mr. Scott stated that in 1985 the same question was brought up. He made a statement in writing that he would agrre to the condition of transferrance if he ceased to operate at that location. Member Kern indicated that designation of group hones in 1985 resided with the land and that there were no methods of restricting that only elderly residents would be in the group hone. Mr. Eckman stated this is a request for a group home for the elderly. Susan Peterson inquired why the age of 72 was chosen for this hone. Debbie deBesche stated the age of 72 was chosen only for this home, because it was compatible to similar hones. The staff has no objection to lowering the age to 60, if requested. Art Jackson, 901 East Swallow Rd., consented that he agreed with what had been presented up to this point. He said that the people had been living at the home illegally. At the time of this meeting one more person was being requested. He stated his concerns that if more people were allowed to live there that another community meeting would be held. He found cut that petitions could be turned in concerning the additional people. The recommendation was made without these petitions. He complained about the hone being a group hone. He referred to a letter that stated that the house was 2,400 square feet. He felt that the square feet was misleading, as he has been inside the house. The basement is unfinished leaving about 1,100 square feet available, not including the kitchen. The house has three bed - roans and two bathrocros. He felt that the management at the present time Planning & Zoning Boo Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 11 • is not the best. only one manager works and is not at the house too often. He also mentioned that about a week ago one lady fell out of bed and the manager had t-o go next door to get some help. The fire department was called to assist. He concluded by saying he did not believe in the hone. Mr. Scott stated the hone had four bedrooms having 2,400 square feet. There are only 2 residents at the present time. I originally applied for the license on the condition that I would put down the maximum number of occupants and reserve the right to reduce that number later. I did this, reducing the number to 5, not to exceed 5 (there is a reason for this). I do not want to go to extra expense to make the place safer against fire. I do not give the employees the best room in the house and there is not only one employee on duty all the time. Everyone is being subjected to hearsay because no one has been in the home. Robert Scalee of 3017 Parkview Ct. represented two neighbors. He stated that they are opposed to the hone. Their concerns were two: first, seeing this as placing a business in a residential area, and secondly, how these restriction will be enforced. He felt the City Zoning Board is unwilling or unable to enforce the zoning codes. Chairman Crews asked Mr. Scalee if he was aware of the state statute per- mitting these homes in any zoned areas. • Robert Scalee commented he became aware of the statute during this meeting. His concern is that the hone is a business and he is concerned for the long-term quality of the neighborhood. Derry F,ynon of 3009 Southmoor Ct. stated he had signed the petition oppos- ing 8 residents. I do not oppose 5 or fewer residents. His concerns were about the enforceability of the conditions recommended for this group home. He wanted to reverify if the license was not granted the permit for vari- ance would not be issued. Also, he wondered what kind of group home would take the place of the present one. He wanted to know if the condition placed upon Mr. Scott would be enforceable. Debbie deBesche stated that after discussion with Mr. Eckman that this condition could be enforced. Mr. Eckman indicated that the condition was agreed upon by the applicant. He felt comfortable that it will be enforceable. Derry Eynon commented that if the license is not transferable then he does not object with the proposal. Peter Barnes addressed the enforcement issue. Revoking the certificate of occupancy or issuance of a court summons would take place if violation of a specific code section occurred. The City would only be aware of these violations through either state licensing agency contacting us or when • neighbors observing the situation contacts us with appropriate evidence. Member Dow inquired if the State licensing authorities would advise the city when a violation has taken place. Planning & Zoning Boarc inutes May 18, 1987 page 12 Peter Barnes informed that the State has its own licensing regulations and they look at different criteria. As part of the administrative changes that we are implementing, along with the proposed amendment charges, one is to establish better relations with the state. There will be attempts to improve communication between the state and the city. Member Kern commented that if there are only two people monitoring the entire state then we are acting on a complaint basis only. Peter Barnes stated that the two individuals go out to, each home yearly and survey the home to make sure they are in compliance with the licensing standards. Member Brown indicated that there would not be any way to determine if the ownership or management had charged hands. Peter Barnes stated the two people may not even be aware of the original ownership at the time of the inspection. Mr. Eckman added that he imagined the statute requires the owner to be personally examined. Member Lang inquired if Mr. Scott is required to carry insurance and bond- ing. Mr. Scott replied yes. Member Dcxw asked if the licensing was in Mr. Scott's name or in a corpora- tion's name. Mr. Scott stated that the application named the corporation and that he was a partner in that corporation. Member Dow asked Mr. Scott if the transferability of the hone regarded him personally or the corporate entity. Mr. Scott commented that it was not his intent to circumvent the law. Art Jackson stated he would like to correct two statements. The first about being in the house and secondly about not knowing alot about the house. He said the little office next to the dinning roan which measures about 6x8 feet could be considered the fourth bedroom. Robert Scalee wanted Mr. Scott to verify that there are two staff people at the home at all times. Mr. Scott stated that he hired one woman who has a husband. He said she can adaquately handle two residents. The husband is not considered part of the staff. With three or more residents Mr. Scott indicated that another person will have to cane in during the days. He also stated that one per— son is all that is required at night, but there are usually two. He con- cluded by saying the manager and her husband live in the 6x8 rocm which is Planning & Zoning BC! Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 13 • actually 12x12 feet. Inez Jackson, 901 East Swallow, commented that she was not opposed to the group home. She believes the applicant does not own the hone or live in the neighborhood, but wants to come in and start a business. She inquired if Dr. Hogg was part of the corporation. Mr. Scott noted that Mrs. Scott and himself are the two partners in the corporation. Martha Trimble, 1909 Stover, informed that she is learning about group hones through her neighborhood meetings. She requested a definition of group home and wanted to know about the restrictions placed on these hones. Debbie deBesche indicated that the state license includes the following requirements: review of operator, personnel requirements, services, medi- cation, and residents rights. Mr. Scott briefly stated from the City of Fort Collins Planning Depart- ment's statement the facts on group hones. Member Edwards had a concern regarding the transfer only to the operator and not to the property. He stated the operation is placed with a known person, but if applicant had not agreed to the condition could it be • enforceable. Mr. Eckman rated that the code does not address this issue. He said it was fortunate that the applicant had agreed to the condition. He also stated that it should be possible to look at the code and make amendments. Member Edwards stated that the public should not have false expectations as to what the city can or can not do regarding imposing these limitations unless the applicant so agrees. Member Kern indicated he would be introducing such a recommendation later in the evening. Member Dow moved to approve Morning Star Group Hone, 3012 Scuthmoor Court, with the following conditions: First, the five conditions as stated in the staff memorandum with the correction of the word convenience to conveyance. The two other conditions being: one, pretaining to Condition E, concerning the transfer or lease of the property, that the staff work with the appli- cant to insure sufficient language to cover both corporate or other enti- ties as well as the applicant and his wife personally. The final condition is that an appropriate notice of the approval with the conditions be pre- pared to be excuted by the applicant in his individual and corporate capac- ity and that the notice be recorded at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office. This should be done so that any future leasees or • purchasers' of the property would be on notice of the conditions, thus adding additional protection. He felt that theme should be later discus- sion on possibly amending the ordinance. He oom:ented that it is important Planning & Zoning Board nutes May 18, 1987 page 14 when these special uses are approved with conditions that the world is put on notice, so -to -speak, so that a subsequent owner cannot cane in and a potential problem arises. Member Kern seconded. The motion carried 7-0. AmENEMENTs To THE GROUP HOME AND HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCES - #113-80F Peter Barnes gave staff description of this ordinance which included cer- tain amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding group hones and home occupancy. Member Dow inquired about Section 6. He commented that the suggestion is that group hones, except for the developmentally disabled, must be owner occupied in the R-L and R-E zones. He questioned that this does effec- tively eliminate most group homes. Peter Barnes commented that this does not effect most group homes if they are owner occupied. The group homes can still be located in RM, RH, and BG zones. Mr. Eckman stated that the intent may be to limit group hones in lower density areas. Member Dow questioned if the approval of a request for a group home is personal in nature or does it go with the lard, as opposed to the owner. Member Edwards inquired about Section 1 regarding the renewal of a home occupation license. He felt the wording suggested that if someone had made a complaint that the license would not be renewed pending the outcome of the investigation. He thought that the person would be put in a posi- tion of being guilty before being proven innocent. He stated that undue burden on the licensee presumes guilt rather than innocence. Peter Barnes stated that hopefully it could be determined by making a visit to the home if a violation had occurred. He also commented that by going out to the home and reviewing the complaint that it might be determined if the complaint was harrassment or not. Member Edwards wondered if neighbors could make continual complaints that would unduly penalize the person with the license. Mr. Eckman commented that Member Edwards made a good point. Mr. Eckman stated that the language should be reworded so that there would be no opportunity for abuse. Member Kern made a few points. First, the front page stated annual license yet the following sections refer to a renewal every two years. Secondly, two group homes could be located directly across from each other on Lemay. Peter Barnes stated that if this case would happen it would require special review by the Board and they would determine whether it was a sufficient Planning & Zoning Bds Minutes . May 18, 1987 page 15 • barrier to avoid concentration in that area. Member Strom inquired about the ability to limit the transferance of the license of a group home. He caffmented on Section 5, part B. He felt that this limits the scope of what can be looked at in the review and there is nothing in this section that suggests the owner can be considered and whether limits can be placed on a new owner. Peter Barnes stated that the current proposed ordinance does not give the Board the authority to do this. Part A of Section 5 informs that the Board has the power to approve or deny, or approve with conditions, and includes limits on the number of residents. Mr. Eckman commented that with respect to this issue, if it is a zon- ing concern that the use runs with the lard. On the other hand, if it is a licensing issue then the license would expire in a couple of years, there- fore offering a solution. Member Strom stated about the table that illustrated the lot size require- ments. He felt that limiting the residents in RE zones to three residents seems unduly restrictive. Member Brown asked about Section 1 and Section 2. She assumed that Section . 1 gives the City sane type of oversight capability and eliminates group hones from the hone occupation category. She inquired where the same oversight capability will come into play regarding group hones in the city. Peter Barnes responded on the differences of group homes and hone occupa- tion. He stated that reliance is placed upon the state rather than to have overlapping criteria. Member Brown stated she is concerned about the reviews of group homes. Peter Barnes informed that the City does not have expertise to review health care facilities, but that the State reviews on a yearly basis. Member Strom commented about the zoning matter. He asked if the group hone is approved for five what are the possibilities of sneaking in three more. This would go unnoticed if it did not create a problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Eckman stated that a clause could be included so that the City would have the right to enter the group home and examine the books which would verify the number of residents. Member Brown commented that she would feel more comfortable knowing the City could do this. Mr. Eckman informed that the duration of the license should be reviewed • along with the transferability. He felt that it might be better to look at the renewal of the license as being a workable solution. Member Lang stated that the Board should address their concerns. Planning & Zoning Board nutes May 18, 1987 page 16 U Member Kern addressed two topics. He stated the first topic might be put into the form of a motion. The two topics stated by Member Kern were: first, altering the minimum separation requirements of RE, RF and RL zon- ing. He felt changing the distance from 1750 feet to 750 feet serves no purpose. He informed there is no need to treat RE and RL with the same density as BG zones. Secondly, he wants to see the use more strictly def- ined. He commented that when the use goes with the land all the stated uses reside with the land in perpetuity. He suggested limited ownership to the land and vacation after one year the land would revert to the cur- rent zoning or perhaps the proprietor should have some sort of business rights, giving control over the situation. Jan Painter, of 900 Cheyenne Drive, distributed to the Board a chronology of events from the neighborhood in Indian Hills. She proceeded to read word-for-word from this documentation,(see attached). She stated that she was utterly opposed to the 750 foot requirement. Finally, after reading the entire listing of events she cartnented that staff had recommended adop- tion of all sections and she wanted the Board to realize that they did not have to be consistent with state standards, since these are only the mini- mum standards. She requested that all opposed to the changing of the amendments to the ordinance stand. Let record show that approximately 34 people stood. Mark Painter, of Boulder Colorado, informed he was an attorney. He stated that it is his job to point out misrepresentations to the Board. He feels the Planning Department is trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes. He defined Home Rule City as stated in the Colorado Constitution. He stated that municipal ordinances supersede state ordinances or statutes. He noted both laws may coexist if laws do not conflict, but if there is conflict the stricter one prevails. Chairman Crews interrupted to inform Mr. Painter that only one person from the City was an attorney. Mr. Painter continued by saying at the bottom of page 3 the phrase was used: eliminate a conflict. He stated there is no conflict. The City allows up to six and the State allows up to eight residents. A statement in page 4 regarded the Planning and Zoning Board will not make arbitrary decision of the size and location of a group home. He pointed out that the decision is not arbitrary but a conscious one. Also, on page 6 and 7 the institutional element was identified. A group hone is residential in nature, whereas a nursing hone is more institutional in nature. A defini- tion is given which states a group hone does not equal a nursing home. fie did not agree with the definition. He felt that a group hone is somewhat institutional just like a nursing home. He stated that applications and licenses will be subject to zoning laws of the City, as stated in the State statutes. He commented that the intent to prevent overdensity of these institutions. He informed the Board to distinguish between emotional and real issues. He suggested that a definition be created for group hones since the one stated in the staff recommendations is incomplete. fie corn cluded by saying a bad precedent is being set and that the amendments should be postponed until the Planning Department can be called to account Planning & Zoning BOO Minutes • `May 18, 1987 page 17 • for its' actions to date. James Garrett stated he sent a letter which the Board received a copy of to review for the meeting. He had two concerns: one, there should be separa- tion requirements to like kind, and the second regards definitions. He stated staff has tried to define group hones and nursing hones and tried to make a destinction between the two He inquired if both are required to obtain licenses. Peter Barnes responded yes. Mr. Garrett continued by saying that the attempts at language are unneces- sary. John Coswell, of 3039 Anchor Way, addressed a few points. First, he felt group hones are being granted an exception or a variance and not granting a use by right. Secondly, he stated a cause for investigation would give the City the right to investigate. Martha Pickett, attorney, represented a nation-wide company which special- izes in services for the handicapped and developmentally disabled, elderly persons. Ram Incorporated, the company being represented is interested in acquiring property in Fort Collins. She stated that the State needs places • for the developmentally disabled persons. The State is near a crisis situ- ation at this point, she commented. She indicated that private convenants do preclude zoning ordinances. She also stated that standards should be the same for the County and City. Few neighborhoods welcome group hones but education covers problems once they understand the issue. She con- cluded stating there will be an increase need for group hone facilities. Member Edwards requested that Martha Pickett identify the corporation she is representing. Martha Pickett stated the corporation in question as being Rem Incorporated and the Colorado organization: Rem Services Inc. Dick Suinn commented that there is a need for group hones yet there are not a sufficient number of these hones. He stated this may be an important social issue. He felt that there is a balance of two principles. One, social needs and two, the concentration and density of the homes. He stated he supports the distance proposal i.f the one-third mile is retained. He questioned if the City would be worried about a possible conflict between themselves and the State. He commented the City can be more restrictive. Mr. Eckman indicated the conflict could be defended either way. Dick Suinn stated the City can be more restrictive provided that you do allow for group homes. He suggested that the one-third mile be retained and removing the term "generally" from the bottom of the staff report. He informed he worked as a psychologist in a institution for the • elderly. By issuing a physicians statement certifying the group have pro- vides sufficient "help" would add additional protection of the residents. Chairman Crews took the discussion back to the Board. Planning & Zoning Board nutes May 18, 1987 page 18 Member Dow asked what the staff expected from the Board. Did staff want the City Council to recommend the ordinance or want the staff to make further modifications. Peter Barnes commented that any input would be welcome. Member Edwards stated that relevant issues had been raised. He felt the proposed amendments need work and that it is premature to recc mend adop- tion of anything until the issues have been considered in more detail. Chairman Crews inquired if the Board could make general recommendations to the staff. Mr. Peterson stated Council is the ultimate arbitrator. Recommendations need to be modified if the Board feels it is necessary. Member Brawn questioned why staff felt it necessary to define both nursing and group homes in their recommendations. Peter Barnes stated the zoning code does not include many definitions. He informed that at the request of the Indian Hills residents the defini- tion has been included. The Indian Hills residents felt the definition created distinction and it may not be all inclusive. Mr. Peterson indicated staff was aware of the Boards' concerns and staff would take into account the many perspectives raised this evening . Member Kern specifically wanted several concerns addressed or altered. First, Section 4: regarding physical barriers, remove arterial or public parks from physical barriers. These are not always substantial barriers. Second, limit group homes use to elderly or some particular category of use. Third, know the limit on present ownership and land in perpetuity or some time restriction. Fourth, inquire if one-third mile is appropriate. He stated the needs of the group hone need to be demonstrated before the densities are increased. Fifth, a keener separation between nursing homes and group homes. Member O'Dell stated, in regards to Member Kern's first concern dealing with Section 4, that the last sentence allows for the Planning and Zoning Board to determine if the barrier and resulting separations are adaquate to protect the City from negative impact. She wanted the one-third mile lessened because not everyone wants to have a group home in their house. By lessening the distance it will provide opportunities for those who do want group homes in their home. Chairman Crews stated that the distance should not be 750 feet but it should not be one-third of a mile either. Peter Barnes requested the Boards' direction in regards to the separation requirements in RM, where the proposed charge is 750 feet from 1000 feet. General comments have been in the RE and RL zones. Planning & Zoning BA Minutes • May 18, 1987 page 19 • Member Brown stated one of the purposes of the separation distance is to avoid over concentration of group homes and the distance should be kept the same for all zones. Member Dow commented the one-third mile is reasonable and 750 feet is not adaquate. He stated Section 4 the barrier requirement could be addressed by inserting the word substantial before natural. The intent of public park is generic and it should be eliminated or stated as community park. Section 5, part B, changes should be considered regarding "the criteria is limited to the following" charging this phrase to "the criteria should include the following". Section 6, part C, suggestions to eliminate accepting the developmentally disabled and all should be treated the same. Also, the owner -occupied or non-profit issue should be reviewed. Member Strom commented on Section 4, part B, that the beginning is permis- sive. Public parks and major thorough fares should not be eliminated. Member Brown indicated the State is tending toward a trend of 4 residents as to 8. Chairman Crews stated that in the long run group homes will be easier to put into neighborhoods. Dick Suinn asked since there has been recommmmmendations to the ordinance • proposal would the new ordinance proposal be brought back next month to be shared. Chairman Crews indicated it would. No motion was made. The Board asked staff to work further on the proposed ordinance. DUECK REZONING - #9-87B Ken Waldo gave the staff report recommending rezoning fran T to HB with two conditions: 1.) a PUD be required, and 2.) the entire parcel be master planned. Member Brown asked if there were uses by right on the property. Mr. Waldo indicated there were none. David Moore, the applicant, indicated they were in favor of the HB zoning with the PUD condition because it would make marketing easier. He stated they plan to provide quality shopping for the approximately 1200 families who will live in the area. He indicated Jim Giffod, the land planner, would be able to answer questions. Member Edwards asked what the intent is of the supermarket. • David Moore stated the intent was to get a quality supermarket into the location because a 7-11 or PDQ would not be adaquate and they needed the additional draw to support the larger facility. He commented that College Planning & Zoning Board nutes May 18, 1987 page 20 Avenue would contribute to this draw. Chairman Crews indicated that the issue of a supermarket would be dealt with further down the road. Member Brown inquired if false levels of expectation are being set. Mr. Moore stated he had a good track record and has good relationships with major food companies. Member O'Dell informed it has been the policy of the City Fort Collins to locate supermarkets in neighborhood shopping centers. Her concern was that the location being discussed would not be in a neighborhood shopping center but on College Avenue. Mr. Moore restated there would be approximately 1200 families living within a mile of the supermarket. Del Webb will have approximately 3000 families to the west. Member O'Dell motioned to approve the Dueck Rezoning project with the con- dition requiring the entire 20.1 acres be master planned as a single unit at the time of any development proposals. Member Lang seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Kern commented he felt uncomfortable about a shopping center in a mixed community, but he was more at ease with the POD condition. Mr. Peterson reminded the Board of the Joint P&Z/City Council meeting on May 26, 1987 at 6:15p.m. concerning the Foothills Mall project. Members Brawn and Crews responded they would attend. Meeting was ajourned at 11:42p.m. SLATON REZONING : miim y COUNTRY CL °•° '. •. •. •.•. •.. •. •. WILLO RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER zol ..'.'.'.•..•.•...•.t.:. .......'..: W:: '•` HIGHWAY la r �/ ......... . x; ....:.•.....}; : r::K'• N DENTAL CLINIC pIL CHARLESTON �^ .• c! ::::: r1 y :«:i F. '.;, THE PULSE' .........::•:•;•:•:4MARTIN LUTHER GROUP HOME • } 1 F'1^ `:;:.:•,•'i.. r: ::•EAST PROSPECT ESTATE ;'..Z.. ✓ oR6 :: ` v SUBDIVISI( ^q :::... y BLUE SPRUCE FARMS ANNEXATION a•�.......Rr FOOTHILLS MALL !<; >.• .•:« THE ARENA �•. o .... • .. E'[OOTY.• •.•.•.•.• u 1 {• HORSETOOTH COMMONS ::...• •.•.•.•.•.:.•..•.•.•.•..•.•. . ;:�{..... .p . y.� ..,.:{. d.. • ENGLISH RANCH RO 38E :'R,•.' IX '•'�.'�.+rAMk'. ^'•. •. .'.•.ei'.".'.'.':'.•f� FI ... • • • • °+'} } , �� MOUNTAIN RANGE REGENCY PARK N•::f?: o \ ._4 OAK RIDGE WEiST ':-MOAK RIDGE 9th • � J t .r;'• ti :+''tee''