HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/26/1980r
t
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES --
c;_i ,r .
June 26, 1980
Board Present:
Paul Eckman, Carolyn Haase, Gary Spahr, Phyllis Wells
Staff Present:
Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Paul Deibel, Linda Hopkins, Cathy
Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark -
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Wells:
Called meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
Welcomed those in attendance and briefly explained the function of
the Board, its makeup, and the general rules of procedure for the
meeting. Introduced Planning Division staff.
Explained the function of the Limited Discussion Agenda. Announced
that Item No. 1, Amendment of zoning ordinance relating to governmental
uses, had been withdrawn, and that Item No. 3, Greenbriar Condominiums,
had been continued to July 28.
2. #51-80
Wintergreen P.U.D., Preliminary
A preliminary proposal for an 18 unit P.U.D. on 3 acres, Toned R-L,
Low Density Residential, located east of Taft Hill Road approximately
-a mile north of Elizabeth.
Applicant: Win-ner Enterprises, 2201 Glade Road, Loveland CO 80537
Smith:
Gave brief description of the proposal and its location, recommending
approval.
Wells:
Asked for public comment.
Anthony Tanana:
Resident adjacent to the proposal. Asked how high the buildings would
be and how close to his back fence.
Albertson -Clark:
Replied these would be condominium units approximately 22 stories
in height. Pointed out the location of the concrete bike/pedestrian
path on the north side of the property and said it would be 10' to 1.5'
between the path and the property line. Showed location of the buildings.
Tanana: Objected to the height of the buildings as they would block the entire
view from his yard.
Mrs. Earl Callahan: Asked what type of construction materials would be used, whether
there would be a sidewalk between their property and the condominiums
for the use of Moore School students, whether they would be owner -
occupied or rental units, whether there would be a caretaker, whether
there would be any park area, whether pets would be allowed. Also
read from a letter from the Walter McChesneys who were unable to attend,
but who also live on West Orchard adjacent to the proposal, requesting
that a storm sewer be put in for drainage, that a sidewalk for Moore
School students be installed, and also asking about pets. Inquired ,
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 2
if there is to be a park, who would be permitted to use it.
Wells: Suggested the applicant might wish to respond.
Dennis Stranger: With Hogan and Olhausen, representing the applicant. Stated that all
the units would be sold as condominiums and presumably owner -occupied,
with an owners' association to be formed to maintain the open space
recreation areas. Said no public park is envisioned, but that there
would be some active open space in the east and south parts of the
area. Stated the issue of pets had not yet been addressed. Said they
would comply with the City's requirements as far as drainage is
concerned, noting there would be a retention pond in the southeast corner
of the property.
Wells: Asked if elevations were available.
Stranger: Replied they had submitted some preliminary elevations to staff, but
they were not firm, and that it was possible there would be a single -
level unit. Stated it would be standard frame construction with lap
siding and reddish -brown asphalt shingles. Said all the units will be
two -bedroom.
Earl Callahan: Expressed concern that the units would be occupied by rowdy college
students.
Wells: Stated the units would be sold, not rented, but that the Planning and
Zoning Board has no discretion with respect to requiring the units to
be owner -occupied. Pointed out that the area is zoned for Low Density,
so the density would be much lower than in many condominium developments,
and that a bike/pedestrian path going the full length of the property to
provide access to Moore School. Noted that most of the units are toward
the southern part of the property, away from existing residences.
Mrs. Callahan: Stated the sidewalk and its 15' distance from the property line is a
good idea.
Wells: Pointed out that as part of the P.U.D. process, the whole area would be
landscaped, and that maintenance of the landscaping would be required
and a homeowners' association would be responsible for doing so. Asked
if there were further comments.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval.
Spahr: Second.
Vote: Haase: yes, with commendation to the developer for solar orientation;
Wells: yes; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes.
Motion carried, 4 - 0.
3. #69-78A Greenbriar Condominiums (Continued to July 28.)
4. #69-80 Front Range Farm Industrial Park Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 91 acres from FA-1 Farming and
I -Industrial, located east of I-25 on the north side of East Vine Drive.
Applicant: Lester Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521
i
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 3
Smith: Gave brief staff report, and recommendation for approval to the county
subject to the condition that the Urban Growth Area application criteria
be met prior to obtaining a building permit from Larimer County.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished to comment.
Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning to the county, subject
to the staff condition.
Haase: Second.
Asked if there were a small portion of the subject property outside the
Urban Growth Area.
Smith:
Replied there might be and that it would have to be looked at very carefull;
Wells:
Suggested amending the motion to include only those areas that are within
the Urban Growth Area.
Spahr:
Agreed.
Haase:
Agreed.
Vote:
Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: yes, inasmuch as the property is within
an area recommended for this type of zoning by the County Land Use Plan,
and is within the Urban Growth Area, and has the condition that the
application criteria be met prior to building permit issuance; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 4 - 0.
5. #13-80A
Hill Pond Phase II - Townhomes
A preliminary proposal for a 94 townhome P.U.D. on 12.5 acres, zoned
R-P, Planned Residential, located on the southeast corner of Shields
Street and Hill Pond Road.
Applicant: Victoria Unlimited, c/o Gefroh Associates, 333 W. Drake,
Suite 23, One Drake Park, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Frank:
Gave staff report, recommending approval, and recommending approval of
a variance to the 15% "Active" open space requirement.
Haase:
Pointed out that with respect to Policy 79 on Page 4, that the proposed
development is located across from a neighborhood shopping center, Spring
Creek, another positive factor.
Steve Van Lear:
Representing the applicant. Stated they had been working on this
particular design since December, 1979 in an attempt to adjust the design
to this site, ::pith one of their goals being to develop an exemplary design
for passive solar and energy -efficient living. Said the reason for the
active open space variance is the fact that the residents of the proposed
units will be members of the existing pool and tennis court association
and will be using that active open space, noting that a membership of
about 260 is planned as appropriate for the recreation area.
Wells:
Asked if there were any public comment.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 4
Jim Martell: Representing several owners in the existing Hill Pond development.
Stated they had general concern on the over-all development although
it may not relate specifically to this phase. Said they had understood
that the recreational area was part of their area, and not part of the
entire project, with 260 people. Presented a petition signed by more
than half of the present owners indicating their concerns. Noted that
many had joined the homeowners' association so that their concerns
would be represented and because they had been told that if they did
not do so, they would lose all rights to use of the pool and courts.
Said many of them had understood when they purchased their condominiums
that the pool and courts would be for their use and theirs only. Stated
that another problem is that the white house is being counted as part o`
the active open space, but that it is also being considered for some type
of office or business use.
Wells: Asked Van Lear to point out the areas of active open space.
Van Lear: Pointed out the location and sizes of the open space. Disagreed with
Martell's contention that representations had been made to the owners
of the existing units that the pool and courts would be for their
exclusive use. Stated they had been told they would be free to use the
facilities until such time as an association was formed, at which time
they could join it. Noted that 42 units would be insufficient to support
a facility of this kir:c. Stated that the office and condominium units
nearby would support the adjacent open space but that it would be for
the use of all 260 units. Stated his attorney was present and would
address this issue.
Wells: Asked if the open space is as was represented on the master plan.
Van Lear: Replied in the affirmative.
Wells: Asked if there were further comments.
Robin Jones: Resident of Hill Pond. Stated approval should not be granted until the
situation is resolved with the homeowners. Showed the Board an advertise-
ment saying that the owners of Hill Pond condominiums would have the use
of the tennis courts and pool, but that last week Van Lear had threatened
to take away access to the pool if the homeowners did not join- the
association.
Wells: Pointed out that the Board tried to stay out of homeowners' association
internal conflicts, but that sometimes the Board hearings were the only
place such conflicts were aired. Asked to have it cleared up quickly so
that consideration of the planning item could proceed.
Van Lear: Explained that since their purchase of the property in August of 1979
they had been working on the pool issue and had developed the concept
of the homeowners' associations. Stated that one of the problems in
a situation like this is involvement with many agencies, one of which
is FHLNC, a secondary mortgage market, which refuses to allow an asso-
ciation to purchase property which will jeopardize their lien position.
Said that the purchase of actual ownership into the Hill Pond, i.e.
1/260 of a piece of land, on a mandatory basis, is against their rules.
Stated that this problem had finally been resolved in June of 1980.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 5
Said he had never promised anyone absolute membership in the pool
association at any time. Stated that at the resale in August there
was an increase in homeowners' fees reflecting membership in the
pool association and also reflecting an agreement between Victoria
and the Hill Pond residents as to how the pool was going to operate.
With respect to threats, stated this is what he had said: "If you
join now, the cost is $535. to join. I cannot guarantee that this
same offer will be made down the line." Stated there were two
options: one a voluntary association including Hill Pond, another
would include the active open space with Phases C, E, F, and G, and
not involve Hill Pond at all. Said the operation of the pool facility
requires at least $12,000 a year, and thus a minimum membership. Said
the operation had been a sore point for some time, but that it had been
solved: there are now 30 members, $3,000 in an escrow account, and
there will be in that account $16,000 for the operation of the pool
facility. Stated they did not have to do that.
Wells:
Stated that the Board is primarily concerned that that active open
space is accessible to the entire project, particularly with respect
to the open space variance.
Van Lear:
Said it is completely open to all 260 units. Stated membership is
voluntary.
Mike Griffith:
Attorney representing Victoria. Stated the association is set up as a
separate corporation, and those in Hill Pond who bought in, bought
shares in the corporation. Said that those who did not,have the option
to do so later, and the remaining 195 shares would be made available in
C,F, E and G phases on a purchase basis. Stated they had first presented
to the Hill Pond residents a purely membership basis, but they had wanted
some ownership, so this plan had been developed. The problems had stemmed
from the fact that all this had taken considerable time and it came to
a point where a decision had to be made whether to go with this plan, or
to create another association later with the other phases, which, if
there was room, could later admit existing Hill Pond residents.
Wells:
Stated the discussion should now be directed to the planning aspects as
the homeowner problem had been aired. Noted that such problems should
be aired at homeowners' meeting as it is not the Planning Board's job
to settle such matters.
Les Kaplan: Stated he had worked on the master plan for Hill Pond. Said that the
variance is justified as the large central space will be utilized by
the proposed development, and a portion of it will be applied to it.
Pointed out that the variance is a separate issue from the homeowners'
as=ociation problems with respect to the pool and tennis courts. Stated
that according to the master plan, there are open spaces just 5' short
of qualifying as active open space which were so designed to avoid
squeezing the townhomes. If those were counted, there would be more than
the required 15% active open space. Stated, therefore, that this
project stands on its own merits, even without the additional open space
of the central area.
Frank Seiler: Resident of Hill Pond. Stated he felt that the proposed association
mechanism would cause the same problems with later phases. Also asked
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 6
how big the "umbrella" would be. Stated the recreation area would
only be available to the 260 units if their owners chose to join, just
as.with a club.
Michael Smith: Resident in Hill Pond. Stated he was told that the pool was the owners'
and that he had witnesses. Did not understand how the Board could
approve this proposal when half of the owners of the existing development
have signed petitions saying Van Lear had lied to them.
Wells:
Repeated that the Board does not get involved in homeowners' associations
problems with the developer.
Jones:
Asked if the developers wanted a variance on this piece of ground.
Wells:
Replied that in order to approve this P.U.D., there must be a variance
from the 15% active open space.
Eckman:
Stated that the planning issue should be addressed at this meeting.
Said that this phase is close to meeting the requirements of the active
open space, and when taken into consideration with the Spring Creek
drainage area and with the location of the area on an arterial and close
to public transportation and shopping facilities, it is a good project.
Noted also that it is an in -fill project and will have the effect of
countering urban sprawl in outlying areas.
Moved recommendation of approval of the P.U.D. and the variance.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Haase: yes; Wells: yes, agreeing with Eckman's comments, re-emphasizing
the the homeowners' allegations about misrepresentation are not part of
the Board's responsibility, and stating that the over-all plan is good,
making good use of energy conservation; Spahr: yes, noting that the
controversy had been inappropriate for the purposes of the Board, and
that the proposal provides adequate open space; Eckman: yes, noting that
the Planning Board must look only at planning matters, and that legal
issues should be addressed elsewhere.
Motion carried, 4 - 0.
6. #54-80 Brown Farm Commercial Center P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for a mixed commercial and residential P.U.D.,
located on 19 acres located at the northwest corner of Drake and Taft
Hill Roads, zoned R-P, Planned Residential (3.1 acres), and B-P, Planned
Business (15.8 acres).
Applicant: Wheeler Realty, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain,
Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the submittal of
detailed architectural elevations to staff before the final site plan
is reviewed by the Council.
Eckman: Asked how many parking spaces would be required for the commercial portion
of the development.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/70
Page 7
Chianese:
Replied that using two different schemes, she came up with a minimum
number of 561 and that 586 are provided. Stated that the parking
appears to be adequate and not excessive.
Wells:
Asked if the installation of medians of which she spoke would be on
Taft Hill and Drake.
Chianese:
Replied affirmatively, stating it would be mainly to restrict free
flow of traffic in and out of the site, not to prevent left turns,
but to avoid additional traffic signals.
Wells:
Asked what the height of the outer buildings on the site would.be.
Chianese:
Replied that elevations are not required until prior to final submittal,
but that the applicant might be able to provide some information.
Zdenek:
With ZVFK, representing the applicant. Pointed out that they had taken
12 acres of land out of the B-P zone voluntarily and put it into the
R-P zone in �Eder to develop a more cohesive plan for the area. Stated
there would rextensive green space buffering next to the residential
single-family area above. Said the residential buildings would be 22
stories, roughly the scale of single-family houses plus three to four
feet. Stated they were providing 38% open space, one of the highest
percentages in the City, and that they had provided for extensive
pedestrian interplay. Said there are two-story buildings shown to the
street in office uses, usually 13' per floor, probably pad C, pad E,
and pad D.
Haase:
Asked what the use would be of the southwest wing of the grocery store.
Zdenek:
Replied it would be the 82,000 feet of retail. Stated they had worked
with the City Traffic Department and had come to a good traffic solution.
Stated that if traffic problems developed, they had agreed to work with
the City so that no signal light would be needed.
Eckman:
With respect to berming, asked if the parking lot would be visible from
the street.
Zdenek: Stated there would be roughly 3z' berms continually around the entire
area with extensive screening.
Eckman: Asked what type of building materials they anticipated utilizing.
Zdenek: Replied the elevations had not yet been done.
Spahr: Asked the maximum height of Building A.
Zdenek: Replied 25', including a parapet.
Spahr: Asked if the two-story buildings, at 13' per story, would be 26' high.
Zdenek: Replied they would probably be higher to accommodate a pitched roof or
parapet.
Haase: Stated she could envisage a great deal of traffic at Valley Forge
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 8
and Taft Hill and asked if a median had been considered there.
Zdenek:
Replied it is not yet necessary with the number of units presently
on and proposed for the street. Stated they could study it further.
Haase:
Stated she would encourage they do so, as a resident of the area with
knowledge of present traffic patterns.
Wells:
Asked the distance from the north property line to the closest unit.
Zdenek:
Replied it would not be less than 20', averaging 25' to 30'.
Chianese:
Stated two would be 25' and one would be 30' distant at the corners,
and the side of another would be 40' distant.
Wells:
Stated that the exposure to the north was mainly on the ends or sides
of buildings and asked if there were many windows on those sides.
Zdenek:
Replied there would be entrances on those sides.
Haase:
Asked if there were a sidewalk on the west side of Taft Hill to Drake
at the present.
Zdenek:
Replied there is not, but that it is included in the plan.
Haase:
Asked if there would be a gas station in this project.
Zdenek:
Replied they had not asked for one.
Harry O'Boyle:
Resident on Yorktown Court. Stated he was concerned about traffic
generated by the center and its effect on Taft Hill Road and Drake,
Valley Forge, and the whole neighborhood.
Wells:
Asked for comments from staff on the improvement of Drake and Taft Hill.
Chianese:
Stated that as part of this development Taft Hill and Drake would be
improved the length of the frontage, including on the development's half,
two lanes of traffic, sidewalks and bikelanes. Said there would be
a signal light at Taft Hill and Drake, and possibly at Hampshire and
Drake, and Valley Forge and Taft.
O'Boyle:
Contended there still would be excessive traffic in Lexington Green.
Wells:
Stated his concerns were well -received and that there was no doubt there
would be increased traffic. Noted that the City traffic engineer had
reviewed the proposal with regard to safely providing for the increased
traffic.
Susan Bremner:
Resident on Hampshire. Stated that when they purchased their property
Wheeler Realty had told them there would be at least a 50' buffer for
their property, no matter what kind of development took place. Agreed
with O'Boyle that summer and football traffic is very bad.
Joe Unzicker: Resident on Ayrshire. Stated his main concern is with the residential
part of the plan. Asked if there would be 52 units on 3.1 acres.
P & Z Minutes a
6/26/80
Page 9
Chianese: Replied there would be 4.5 acres, including that added from the B-P
site.
Unzicker:
Stated that would allow 12 DU/acre.
Chianese:
Said that would be per gross acre.
Unzicker:
Pointed out that two parking lots could not be
more than 10'
from the
property line. Asked if there were a proposed
privacy fence
between
the existing homes and the proposed residential
units.
Chianese:
Replied a fence is not shown, but within the 10'
between the
lots and
the property line, landscaping is proposed, as
is berming.
Unzicker:
Stated that while the open space percentage is
large, the open
space
along Taft Hill is a drainage ditch, and there
is very little
open space
between the residential area and the properties
to the north.
Asked
if the residences would be rental or condominium
units.
Zdenek: Replied they were contemplated to be rentals.
Unzicker: Stated that as a private property owner he is opposed to this type of
residential development.
Wells: Pointed out that the Planning Board has no power to make recommendations
on whether the property is to be owner -occupied or rental.
Brian Newlands: Resident on the north side of the property. Said there should be more
extensive buff ring on the north boundary.
Wells: Asked for further comments.
Eckman: Asked if a fence along the north boundary could be included.
Zdenek: Replied it could be done, but said where the open space is deep, open
space would probably be more attractive. Stated he would be happy to
work with the residents on the issue.
Wells: Suggested that due to the concerns of the neighboring residents that the
Board might recommend definite fencing or very dense vegetation along
the northern boundary.
Zdenek: Agreed that it should be more intensely handled.
Chianese: Suggesting bringing the plan back to the Board for final review to give
both the Board and the residents an opportunity to look at the final plan.
Wells: Stated it would also be important for the Board to see the front and
rear building elevations at that time.
Smith: Stated that preliminary elevations had never been satisfactory and that
staff had been trying to work out a method to get elevations submitted
in detail at final review which would be adhered to. Said this is an
appropriate plan for the Board to see the final elevations, noting that
the rear of certain buildings, such as grocery stores, is not always
very attractive, but this should be handled correctly so it does not
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 9a
create an eyesore to neighboring residents.
O'Boyle:
Commented from the audience (inaudible).
Zdenek:
Replied he could not say exactly what height a building might be with
respect to the commercial structures. Said that residences only go
about 9' per floor.
Smith:
Stated that such details would be addressed on the final which would
be brought back before the Planning Board for approval prior to submission
to City Council.
Zdenek:
Stated it seemed to be a good process, the only dilemma being that some
P.U.D.'s take years to build out and may require extensions.
Wells:
For the benefit of the audience, pointed out that the Planning and Zoning
Board usually looks only at the preliminary proposal, while the City
Council reviews both the preliminary and the final before making a
recommendation. Stated that, in this case, the proposal would be
reviewed again by P & Z in final form at which time there would be more
details on buffering on the north boundary and elevations; further
input from neighboring residents would be accepted at that time.
Eckman:
Pointed out that by then the input received tonight from the neighbors
could be addressed on the plan.
Audience:
Asked if they would receive the same kind of notification as before.
Chianese:
Replied that this item would go to Council on July 15, but that there
would be no further notification. At such time as the item returns
before the P & Z Board as a final, affected property owners within 500'
of the proposal would be notified by mail as with the preliminary.
Wells:
Stated that if anyone wished to be notified of the hearing who does not
live within the 500' limit or who did not previously receive a letter,
they could be notified by so requesting staff.
Spahr:
Expressed concern with the over-all size of the proposal, noting that it
does not fall within the.guidelines for a neighborhood center, 80,000 to
120,000'sq. ft., and the gross area of this proposal is 152,600 sq. ft.
Said that despite the amount of office use, he was unsure it was sufficient
to mitigate the entire scale of the center. Stated there were two factors
relating to scale: the over-all size and compatibility with the surrounding
area, and usage --traffic usage and activity levels. Said the office use
might mitigate the traffic and activity levels, but it still seemed to be
a massive shopping center with acres of parking. Another factor limiting
the neighborhood character of the center is the strong orientation to
arterials. Stated he was also concerned with the buffering on the north
side, but felt that could be dealt with, while the sheer size of the
proposal is a more significant problem.
Haase:
Commented regarding the balance in the area, noting the existence of the
People's Church structure across Taft Hill to the east which has
considerable height and provides aesthetic balance to some degree.
Asked Zdenek if he had any knowledge of ownership or plans for the vacant
land north of the church, or if anyone else did.
P & Z Minutes • •
6/26/80
Page 10
Chianese: Replied that the church, according to county records, owns the land up
to the Lexington Green lot lip-,s.
Zdenek: Commented with respect to size, saying there is a demand for a certain
size of shopping center in a neighborhood, with a 30% additional factor
for office structures. Stated the choice is between placing such
shopping in strips along arterials, or planning to meet the demand by
planning for it in concentrated centers. Said the demand would be met,
and it would be best to meet it in a planned, aesthetic manner, integral
with the neighborhood.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the Brown Farm Commercial Center.
P.U.D. subject to final review by the P & Z Board of the site plan,
front and rear elevations, and treatment of the buffering on the north
side.
Eckman: Second.
Stated this plan represents an appropriate use for this intersection,
a needed use for this part of town.
Vote: Eckman: yes; Spahr: no; Wells: yes, commenting that she shares some of
Gary's concerns about the scale of the development, noting that the
trend to place centers of this size in neighborhoods is something new and
unproved, but that the City's Land Use Plan encourages placing shopping
and employment close to residential areas in order to decrease the
dependency on automobiles and this proposal seems to meet that objective;
Haase: yes, with delight that the center will add an employment center
to that part of town, and with encouragement for the developer and
architect to examine the potential for a raised median at Valley Forge
and Taft Hill Road.
Motion carried, 3 - 1.
Smith: Stated that the concerns about scale are important and appropriate and
that staff would like to bring the issue before the Board again at a
work session to examine other trends and options and definitions.
7. #52-80 Lincoln Junior High School Annexation
A request to annex 66.82 acres located on West Vine Drive, including
the Poudre R-1 School District property, requested zoning, R-L-P,
Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Poudre R-1 School District, c/o Taranto, Stanton & Tagge,
6412 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Albertson -Clark: Described the property and its location and gave the staff report,
recommending approval.
Jim Law: Executive Director for Administrative Services for the Poudre R-1
School District. Stated the District is requesting the annexation for
several reasons: the primary reason is because it was donated to the
District with the commitment that the District would work to have the
land annexed to the City so that a park could be developed on the
western edge of the property. Noted that there had been a school on
the site for five years, and that other conditions of annexation had
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 11
been met. Said that another advantage to the District and the property
owners included in the annexation would be a savings in utility costs.
Eckman: Asked for the location of the park.
Law: Pointed it out on the western -most edge of the property.
Wells: Asked the size of the park.
Law: Replied it is about 5 acres.
Eckman: Asked the acreage of the school site.
Law: Replied it is 50 acres.
Spahr: Asked if there would be any change in the use of the property as far as
the school is concerned.
Haase: Asked if access to the park area would be through the western entry to
Lincoln Junior High School.
Law: Replied in the affirmative. Stated that the "western entry" is actually
the exit, and the only access would be off the top of the U-shaped
drive.
Haase: Asked if the lots to the west were all single-family residences and if
there were any vacant land.
Law: Replied he was unaware of any development on that land.
Haase: Stated it would be possible, then, for future access to be provided from
the west.
Law: Agreed.
Wells: Asked staff to address the question of whether the City can develop land
as parks outside the City limits.
Smith: Replied the City could own land outside the boundary. Stated that the
timing of development of the park is also pertinent and may be at least
five years away whether in or out of the City. Said it would probably
have higher priority if within the City.
Wells: Asked Law if the District has any other concerns in requesting the
annexation.
Law: Replied the primary concern is the park, but that there are other
advantages: the school serves mostly City children, and fire and
police protection would also be available.
Arnie Newton: Resident bordering the Lincoln Junior High property, and also representing
several other residents included in the annexation. Stated that part of
the annexation includes 257' of the north side of Vine Drive, east of the
school's entrance drive, and also the north 30' of Vine Drive, west of the
school's entrance drive. Said the Newtons, Burnhams, Burns' and Histands
all own to the center of the street, and that no one requesting the
P & Z Minutes •
6/26/80
Page 12
annexation had requested their approval. Pointed out that the state
statutes are quite clear that the consent of the landowner must be
acquired prior to dividing a property, part in and part,out of the City,
unless the property is separated by a street. Stated, therefore, that
the petition is defective because it violates the statute. Noted also
that state statutes require four plats showing ownership be submitted
with the annexation petition. Said that ownership for a particular
parcel is shown as being Poudre R-1, but that ownership should be
shown for Mrs. Etchebarne, who was also not requested to consent to
the annexation. Stated that for that reason, the petition is also
defective. Pointed out also that the statute requires 1/6 contiguity
and that the 257' of the north side of the road is what just barely
makes the annexation meet the requirement. Stated that the statute
also says that at least 50% of the land to be annexed has to propose
the annexation, exclusive of streets and alleys. Said that Colorado
legal precedent indicates that if streets and alleys are being excluded
for determining the entire area to be annexed, they cannot be used for
the 1/6 requirement. Without the 257' the annexation is 28' short of
meeting the requirement, according to the law.
Said those are the legal arguments, but that there are others. Discussed
the Front Range Committee subgroups' reports dealing with agricultural
land, especially with respect to the loss of prime agricultural land due
to urban sprawl caused by poor planning, and government by variance.
Contended the life style deteriorates with such growth. Stated the
Quality of Life Subgroup says that local governments should develop
standards which promote higher densities and discourage sprawl. Showed
slides of the land to be annexed.and the surrounding area, noting that
very little of it could be considered urban.
Wells: Stated the slides would become part of the record. Asked for further
comments.
L.F. Henderson: Resident on West Vine. Stated way of life would be lost in this area
if it is annexed. Disagreed with Mr. Law that there are many children in
the area to take advantage of the park, saying that most of the residents
in the area are middle-aged or elderly. Noted that if the annexation were
approved his property would be surrounded and eventually annexed also,
necessitating that he remove his barbed wire fencing and electric fencing,
and not replenish his livestock, leading to a reduction in property value.
Pointed out the flood plain area and the fact that it would not be
developed and increase the population. Said there would be safety problems
with the ditch in the park and small children. Contended there would be
vandalism at the school if the park were developed.
Bev Newton: Stated this annexation is to develop a five -acre park five years in the
future and would meanwhile destroy a quality of life which is becoming
rare. Noted their children had been able to enjoy the advantages of 4-H
bec<iuse they could raise animals, and said that many people were still
using their land agriculturally.
Howard Saunders: Asked why some of the land should be included (indicated it on the map).
Contended the only benefit to the whole annexation is the savino of a
few dollars on utilities. Agreed to the value of the rural life-style,
and expressed concern about the trend toward annexation in the area.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 13
Wells: Stated the Board would like to have some legal opinions at this time.
Ruggiero: Stated that the legal staff had not yet examined the petition in detail,
but that he would be glad to respond to legal questions after Curt
Smith commented.
Smith: Said that Mr. Newton had raised some very good legal points which the
staff had not looked at in detail and which should be examined before
the petition goes to Council. Suggested the Board take action on the
assumption it is legal, then if it is found not to be, it will not go
on to Council.
Wells:
Replied that in this instance, the only reason for recommending approval
would be if it is in conformance with the City's annexation policies,
that is, that the City would pursue annexation of properties within the
Urban Growth Area as soon as they became eligible. Stated that the only
reason it is eligible is that half of it is being considered forcibly;
that it is questionable if the applicant owns in fact 51% of the property;
that the methods of achieving contiguity are questionable. Said the
Board had nothing further to discuss.
Haase:
Asked Mr. Law to respond to the issues of legality.
Law:
Stated the extra property is being included to achieve contiguity.
Stated they were unsure about the question of the 257', but that it
is the other half of the road which had been previously annexed and it
is City policy to annex entire rights -of -way. Said he could not answer
the other questions.
Smith:
Suggested that if the applicant is agreeable, the Board continue this
item until next month, giving staff time to resolve the issues with the
applicant.
Law:
Replied that would be agreeable.
Wells:
Agreed with the suggestion, saying she is embarassed for the City as the
petition has put the neighboring residents through a lot of grief, anxiety
and trouble, yet the City does not even know if it is a legally viable
petition.
Spahr:
Commented as he will be unable to do so in July. Stated it is an unaccept-
able piece of gerrymandering, whether or not it meets the letter of law,
as it does not meet the spirit of the law. Said the priority of obtaining
the park for the City is low at this time, and its opportunity to do so
in the future does not appear to be diminished. Stated he had little
sympathy for retaining a life style in an area which is in the path of
growth for the City, and the change from rural to urban will have to
happen. Said he would vote against it tonight.
Wells:
Stated the policy on continuance is that if the applicant agrees to it,
then the Board can move to continue. If the Board wishes to deny and
the petitioner wishes to continue, the Board has the perogative of voting
on a denial, or on approval, if that be the case.
Eckman:
Stated he would like to hear more about the applicant's obligation to
annex this area. Said it might be more appropriate later.
P & Z Minutes •
6/26/80
Page 14
Stated he favors continuance.
Moved to table the matter until the legal issues can be addressed.
Haase: Second.
Wells: Asked if continuance would be agreeable with the applicant.
Law: Acquiesced.
Vote: Eckman: yes; Spahr: no, saying denial is more appropriate; Wells: no;
Haase: yes.
Motion tied 2 - 2.
Wells: Asked for another motion.
Spahr: Moved to recommend denial of the request for annexation.
Wells: Stated there would be no recommendation and that the legal staff would
attend to the legality of the petition. If found to be illegal, it
would not be heard further; if found to be legal, it will be heard at
the next meeting. Thanked the audience for its attendance and partici-
pation. Asked the petitioner if it would be agreeable to continue the
zoning of this item also.
Law: Responded in the affirmative.
8. #52-80 Lincoln Junior HIgh School Zoning
Spahr: Moved to continue this item until the next meeting.
Eckinan: Second.
Vote: Haase: yes; Wells: yes; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes.
Motion carried, 4 - 0.
9. #50-80 Vine/LaPorte/Taft Hill Annexation
A request to annex approximately 86.7 acres located between LaPorte
Avenue and Vine Drive, west of Taft Hill Road.
Applicant: Jerry Nix, Rocky Mountain Bank Building, Fort Collins, CO
80521.
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, and noting petitions in oppos-
sition had been received from eighteen property owners in the area.
Spahr: Asked how many total property owners there were.
Chianese: Replied, approximately 20.
Spahr: Asked about the possibility of annexing the strip of land on the east side
of Taft Hill.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 15
Chianese: Replied it was doubtful that it would meet the 50% voluntary requirement.
Jerry Nix: Applicant. Discussed the history of the annexation, noting the county
rezoning and the condition requested by the Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board that the developer annex the property prior to development.
Stated the annexation does meet the legal specifications and has no
questions similar to those of the previous item. Stated that the
application could be amended to exclude properties along Taft Hill and
Vine Drive if the residents so desired, and still meet all the require-
ments, but that would bring up non -legal questions: the City's goal of
encouraging development in north Fort Collins and limiting the sprawl
to the south, the issue of piece -meal annexations and accompanying
problems for utilities planners, the regulations for hook-ups to City
utilities. Stated the City had made several concessions.to the people
in the area --Estate zoning, delayed utility connections, retention of
farm animals --similar to those offered to Imperial Estates, noting that
there had been some question whether the City had conceded too much.
Pointed out that considerable effort had been made in meeting with the
residents prior to the hearing to hear their concerns. Noted they
cannot develop their property until it is annexed, despite having the
appropriate zoning, due to the P & Z Board's governmental action.
Haase: Noted that Nix had stated he would annex the property step-by-step if
necessary, and asked if it could be assumed he would pursue a series of
annexations.
Nix: Agreed he would do so if the current petition is denied.
Wells: Asked for public comment.
Charlie Burtner: Resident on North Taft Hill Road. Stated he understood that older
people in the area have a lifestyle they jealously guard, but said that
it is also important to understand that the development of the area from
a utilities standpoint is somewhat substandard. Noted that many of
the people could not afford the upgrading of streets, sidewalks, gutters
and water mains. Stated that they would like to be able to maintain
a flexible number of farm animals and not be limited to the number they
had upon annexation. Said he now has 20 signatures of the 20 people
who live in the area and they do not now wish to go to the expense of
bringing their property up to City standards.
Anson Perina: Resident on Mercer Drive. Suggested they remain in the county and let
the developer take his other options. Asked what services they would get
in the City that they do not presently have. Stated he thought they
would only get higher land taxes, so sees no reason to annex. Noted
that there are many small household businesses in the area and asked what
kind of restrictions the City would put on them, noting there had been
no interference or restriction by the county. Expressed concern about
the costs of annexation --utility hook-ups, street paving --saying that the
costs of those improvements might equal what he could sell his property
for. Asked if he could have any guarantee he would not have to sell his
property to pay for the expenses.
Wells: Asked Chianese to outline the City's proposed policy with respect to
utility services.
6/26/8M0inutes
•
Page 16
Chianese:
Stated that sewer connection would not be required unless there is
failure of the septic system, an existing county regulation for those
within 400' of an existing sewer line. Stated there will be no
charges assessed for sewer hook-ups except for the monthly rate. With
respect to water service, stated it had not yet been determined whether
the annexation would go on City or remain on district water. If City
service were provided; again there would be no hook-up charges, but
only the monthly rate. Stated that well and irrigation water would be
permitted to be kept. Stated that parkland, water rights and other fees
would be waived for developed properties. Said that electric service,
according to City charter, would have to be provided by the City, again
with no hook-up charges, but only a monthly rate. Said street -upgrading
would not be required at this time; improvement of Taft Hill would not
take place for 3 to 5 years except for portions improved as development
takes place. Noted that questions had been raised about zoning which
is the next item, but that they could be addressed now.
Ruggiero:
With respect to businesses, explained non -conforming uses and the
requirements relating to them.
Audience:
Stated that the City could stop any business simply by saying it is a
nuisance.
Ruggiero:
Disagreed, noting that in order to get a court order prohibiting operation
of a business, it would have to be shown that the public health, safety
and welfare was being endangered, not very likely in the case of a small
machine shop or welding business.
Wells:
Asked Chianese to explain what the R-E zone would allow.
Chianese:
Stated that staff was recommending two zones for the area: the undeveloped
area and those that are part of the voluntary annexation would be zoned
R-L-P, allowing for 6 DU/ acre, similar to the present county zoning;
the developed lots on Laporte, Vine, Taft Hill and Mercer Drive would be
zoned R-E, Residential Estate, allowing for large lots and farm animals.
Stated the number of animals would not be restricted according to the
number present at annexation, but that the number could be increased until
a nuisance is created, the same as county regulations.
Gina Ludwig:
Asked if it would not be possible in the future for people to request a
rezoning if for various reasons they did not want the R-E zoning.
Ruggiero:
Stated that like businesses, farm animal uses would be continued as
non -conforming uses regardless of any rezoning as long as they had been
continuously maintained. Noted also, that a rezoning would require that
a change of conditions be shown to justify it.
Jerry Bucher:
Resident on Impala, bordering the west side of the annexation. Stated
he had heard nothing about this annexation being good for the community
or the City. Said, with respect to the comment by Spahr about lack of
sympathy for the continuance of a life style, that it is understandable
that it is not the Board's business to look after his life style, and
it is also not the Board's business to ensure a good profit for a land
developer.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 17
Thelma Loesekan: Owner of 10.4 acres bordering on Sunset and on the proposed annexation.
Stated that Nix had said he would annex piece -meal if necessary; asked
how their property would be affected.
Smith: Replied that under the statutes, when a property has 2/3 of its boundary
contiguous to the City limits, the City can forcibly annex the property
without the consent of the property owner.
Loesekan: Asked what would happen if newly developed areas had people move in who
decided they did not like having cattle nearby.
Ruggiero: Replied that the question of whether or not it constitutes epee
gg p q %caepee on
the type of operation being conducted; it would not automatically become
a nuisance just because there are residential areas near it.
Loesekan: Stated that if a large number of people around felt the cattle were a
nuisance, they could decide to put houses in there.
Wells: Replied the property can be annexed if it is 2/3 contiguous, but houses
cannot be built on an individual's property without his/her consent.
John Ball: Resident on North Taft Hill. Reiterated objections to annexation. Said
that zoning is not any guarantee, because on North College property had
been annexed with one zone, then later it had been rezoned and hamburger
stands and other businesses had been allowed to come in. Contended that
people cannot be expected not to object to livestock on neighboring
property. Stated that the concerns of the people who had lived there
for some time should be the ones taken into consideration.
Nix: Stated that the property of the people on the northeast side of the
annexation could be eliminated which would mean that the petitioners'
ownership would go up to 80%.
Eckman: Asked if that area were included in the annexation to make drawing the
lines easier.
Smith: Replied it was primarily to get away from annexing shapes of property
that create service problems. Noted they were dealing with two arterial
streets in the area, and that it would be preferable to get the entire
street system into the City at one time.
Eckman: Stated those are good reasons. Expressed appreciation for the life style
of the neighborhood and said the R-E zone anticipates that life style and
provides for it. Mentioned the City's concessions with respect to
utility hook-ups and discussed the inevitability and importance of the
City's growth in this direction. Noted that whether or not the property
is annexed, future residents of neighboring developments would probably
have complaints related to farm animals. Stated that on balance this
is a good proposal. Said that there is little that can be done about
growth except to protect residents from its adverse effects as much as
possible which is the reason for the proposed R-E zone and other concessions.
Moved recommendation of approval of the annexation.
Spahr: Second.
6/26%gpinutes • •
Page 18
Wells: Stated that this particular annexation is supported by many of the
Land Use Policies: it is basically in -fill development, surrounded
mainly be urban -style development; such in -fill may mean that larger
tracts of agricultural land will not be lost; the basic infrastructure
for urban services is available; and this is one of the areas which
needs to be considered for economical and logical growth patterns.
Stated it is also supported by the Urban Growth Area Plan and is in
accordance with the Goals and Objectives adopted by the City Council.
Vote: Haase: no, with support for the long-term commitment the area residents
had made for their quality and style of life, but stated she would
support annexation of the undeveloped area; Wells: yes, for the reasons
previously mentioned and in support of the motion, noting that if it
were limited to the undeveloped areas, the excluded areas would be
forcibly annexed very soon, so it makes more sense to include those
areas and avoid problems with utilities, road maintenance, establishment
of logical transportation patterns; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes.
Motion carried, 3 - 1.
10. #50-80 Vine/LaPorte/Taft Hill Zoning
A request to zone approximately 86.7 acres located between LaPorte Avenue
and Vine Drive, west of Taft Hill Road, requested zoning R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Jerry Nix, Rocky Mountain Bank Building, Fort Collins, CO
80521.
Smith: Stated that the annexation will be heard by City Council on July 15.
Chianese: Described the proposed zoning.
Wells: Asked if the applicant had any problem with the recommendations.
Nix: Replied in the negative.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished to speak on the item.
Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval of the zoning as submitted.
Spahr: Second.
Vote: Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: yes; Haase.
11. #56-80 Amendment of Zoning Ordinance relating to group home residential care
facilities.
Deibel: Commented on the impetus for the proposed changes in the ordinance and
went over some of the specifics of staff's findings concerning the issue
and their recommendation. Stated the initial impetus came from requests
to locate group homes outside the R-H zone, but that the present ordinance
makes no provision for group homes in any zone. Previous homes had been
located in the R-H zone by administrative interpretation, but that zone
en�,ompasses a relatively small portion of the City and is not expanding
at the same rate as -the remainder of the City, so such facilities could
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 19
become concentrated in the R-H neighborhoods. An over -concentration in
one neighborhood could create negative impacts in that the neighborhood
becomes identified as a social services district. This is also detrimental
to group homes as their goal is to provide as normal a setting as
possible. Recommendations were made at the February meeting to define
group homes and staff was directed to look further into use, the result
of which is the report under discussion tonight. Stated the report
includes information on the different categories of group homes, indica-
ting their diversity and also their similarity in that each is to provide
a family -like environment under supervision. This distinguishes a group
home from a multiple -family dwelling or a boarding house. Pointed out
that as the City grows, more group homes of all types are likely to come
in. Stated that the report contains information on how other cities
handle group homes, generally on a special case -by -case review or by
standardized regulations that apply to all cases across the board. Said
it is staff's opinion that the latter approach is superior. Phile the
other approach does provide for neighborhood input, it may be more Pmotional
than objective. Regulatory guidelines would be needed anyway, and it makes
sense to develop requlations to be included in the ordinance and applied
equally in all cases. Stated that there are no provisions at the present time for
special permit uses, per se, but that that kind of a mechanism could be
provided if the Board so desired. Summarized the City's concerns: that
the group homes be properly run and not pose any hazard to the health
or welfare to City or neighborhood residents; that the size and scale of
group homes be consistent with the neighborhoods in which they are located;
and that group homes not be over -concentrated in any zone. Stated these
concerns can be met by requiring all group homes to be licensed by appropria
governmental agency, be operated as a single dwelling, and have constant
supervision on the premises; size and scale requirements with respect to
each zone; minimum distance separation requirements between any existing
group home and any proposed group home. Read the revised definition of
group homes: "Group home: a residence operated as a single dwelling under
the supervision of a court, state or local governmental agency, housing
persons for purposes of special care or rehabilitative treatment due to
homelessness, physical condition or illness, mental condition or illness,
social, behavioral, or disciplinary problems, and with a person authorized
by the operating agency to supervise the facility present on its premises
at all times." Noted that provisions for additional parking for group
homes are also included.
Spahr: Asked if the group home categorization is standardized or if it was made
up locally; expressed concern about being able to categorize a home.
Deibel: Replied it was difficult to get an over-all picture of all the categories
and that the diagram in the report came out of the Planning office.
Spahr: Noted the difficulties of distinguishing between various kinds of disabi-
lities.
Deibel: Agreed that can be difficult, and noted there is considerable variation
within each category, but that there are consistent characteristics which
identify all as group homes.
Spahr: Asked if Deibel had any guidelines for wrestling with the issue of
social compatibility with a neighborhood, noting he had no problem with
the issue of physical compatibility.
P & Z Minutes 40 •
6/26/80
Page 20
Deibel: Replied they do not as the staff would have a hard time coming up with
objective criteria, but that that is the issue people are concerned
about. Stated they had concluded that would have to be the responsiblity
of the licensing agencies and that it is their job to do so. Noted that
some of the debate is whether or not they do an adequate job, but that
it would be very difficult for the City to do so.
Ruggiero:
Stated this originally stemmed from a question about group homes for the
developmentally disabled. Said that the proposed ordinance is in substan-
tial, but not complete, compliance with state statutes which require that
a city provide as a residential use for a home for developmentally disabled
individuals of a capacity of not more than eight. Noted the proposed zone
actually starts at five to seven occupants and allows for more than eight
which is not required. Noted the statute refers only to homes for the
developmentally disabled. Stated the statute does provide that the city
can provide for certain regulations in terms of spacing, accessibility to
convenience facilities, transportation, education, etc., as long as such
regulations are not tantamount to prohibiting the use in a residential
zone.
Deibel:
Said that since the state allows for size and scale limitations, there
could be room for interpretation, but that it is a relatively minor issue.
Said the City should decide of its own accord how it wanted to handle
group homes and not simply respond to state legislation.
Spahr:
Asked counsel why the state singled out developmentally disabled homes.
Deibel:
Replied it may be because the developmentally disabled were more effective
lobbyists.
Ruggiero:
Stated he was speculating, but that a home environment is important to
the developmentally disabled who may not pose the same kind of problems
that other groups might. Suggested Deibel give some insight into the
capacity requirements of licensing agencies.
Deibel:
Replied that the requirements vary according to the agency and the type
of facility. Gave some examples of the types of capacity requirements.
Wells:
Asked for public comment.
Bob Wells:
Chairman of the Handicap Advisory Committee for the City of Fort Collins,
and extensively involved with the disabled community in the area.
Stcited that their last meeting they had discussed this ordinance amendment
and that they had commended the staff for their research and recommenda-
tions. Said they support the adoption of the amendment.
Joe Cienfuegos:
Ro3 ident on Wood Street. Stated that group homes are meant for criminals.
al,:c.,;iics, and nothing to do with disabled persons. Asked if any property
had been bought for these homes.
P. Wells:
Stated that there are several categories of group homes: for shelter for
the homeless, for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, for developmentally
disabled, for the emotionally disabled, and for correctional rehabilitation
Said that Mr. Wells had referred to homes for the developmentally disabled.
Pointed out on a map the current location of group homes, five of which
are currently in existence.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 21
Cienfuegos: Stated he had previously been to the Planning and Zoning Board objecting
to the building of an apartment as their neighborhood has its share of
high density housing. Asked about a proposed medical center on Cherry and
Wood Streets, owned by the City.
Deibel: Replied that a facility providing full-time medical care would not be
classified as a group home, and would have to be located in a zone in
which full-time health care facilities are allowed, i.e. R-H. Stated
he was not familiar with the particular case.
Cienfuegos: Stated he opposed that center as they had their share, but did not
oppose the ordinance amendment. Presented a petition.
Wells: Stated that the Planning Board and staff are also concerned about the
issue of concentration.
Smith: Stated he would take the petition and present it to Pat Allen who is
doing something in that area, noting he is not familiar with exactly
what it is.
Haase: Stated it would be a Respite Care, lifeline for families with members
who are developmentally disabled, supported by the Association for
Retarded Citizens of Larimer County. Said information about it had
been presented to City Council May 20, and that funding comes from
Community Development Block Grant funds.
Carol Flynn: Director of Association for Retarded Citizens. Stated the particular
lot had not yet been purchased. Said it is neither a medical center
nor a group home, but a Respite Care program, providing a house which
would fit in with the neighborhood for a kind of drop -in child care.
Said they were planning neighborhood informational meetings about the
program.
Margaret Mitchell: Owner of two properties in the Laurel School neighborhood. Said
she is glad the City is pursuing the problem of group homes, but noted
that it is difficult for the neighborhood resident to distinguish between
group homes, respite care facilities, medical centers and social service
agencies or a unit of the Housing Authority. A concentration of such
social services, when it becomes high, is threatening to the neighborhood.
Said it is appropriate to move group homes out of the R-H zone as others
would be more difficult to locate outside the R-H zone. Stated that
while she supports the amendment, she is concerned that many group
homes will still locate in the older neighborhoods. Said that if this
were handled on a permit -only basis, some neighborhoods would present
very resistant, emotional statements and would defeat the application,
while neighborhoods like Laurel Street with little resistance would end
up with the homes. For that reason, stated she supports a right by use.
Stated she supports this kind of group home and would like to see them
spread throughout the community.
Art Bavoso: Director of Larico Youth Homes which has two of the homes in the City.
Complimented Deibel on his report which he characterized as being
"enlightened". Stated they also support the amendment and spreading
out the group homes.
Jim Weddell: Board Member for the Association for Retarded Citizens. Stated there
-P 8 Z Minutes •
6/2b/80
Page 22
is an emotional social issue involved which is difficult to deal with.
Pointed out the value of group homes with a family -type environment
for rehabilitation as seen by professionals in the field. Stated that
those individuals admitted to group homes are carefully evaluated.
Said there were studies for all kinds of disabilities showing the
effects of group homes on communities and that such factual studies
should be used to counter emotional opposition. Listed several studies
showing very, very little negative effects from group homes, and
considerable positive contributions by group homes.
Glen Thill: Resident on Wood Street. Expressed opposition to the Community Development
project on Wood Street.
Wells: Stated there would be hearings on that particular project, probably at
the Council level, and suggested he attend hearings on that project and
present his views.
Hazel Belcher: Supervisor at the Department of Social Services for the last seven
months. Stated that before that time she had been in California for
nine years in the field of developmental disabilities. Complimented
Deibel for his support which summarizes modern thinking about the best
way to care for people who are less fortunate than most. Limiting her
comments to the developmentally disabled, stated that croup homes are
designed to help those who are capable of living in such a situation
do so rather than being shoved into an institution or nursing home. Said
this is a nation-wide trend and commended the Board for dealing with the
issue now as it would certainly become one later.
Haase: Moved recommendation that the Zoning Ordinance be amended as recommended
in Deibel's report, with the addition requiring that a group home be
required to have 24-hour authorized supervision on its premises be
added to the definition of group hones.
Spahr: Said he generally supports the proposal, has no problems with homes for
the developmentally disabled or with shelter care, but expressed uncertainty
with respect to homes for drug and alcohol rehabilitation due to the side -
effects of the disease. Stated he was very concerned about the emotionally
disabled and correctional rehabilitation, despite the very good reputation
of Larico. Said he had doubts ab relying on the state licensing agency
because they are often inadequate lack of funds and staff. Also
expressed concern about the adequacy of properly trained supervision for
the protection of the community. Noted this also may be due to the
notoriously low budgets of such agencies and their inability to pay for
proper supervision. Stated the evaluation of individuals for placement
in homes for the emotionally disabled and for criminal rehabilitation is
a very imperfect system and a very conservative approach needs to be
taken, which is not always done. For these reasons, expressed doubts
about the safety for the surrounding community with these types of homes,
he -,es for the "anti -social" for lack of a better word.
Eckman: Agreed with some of these concerns. Stated he felt comfortable with
having the Planning and Zoning Board consider the question of social
compatibility with neighborhoods inasmuch as the state statutes give the
municipalities the power to zone for the purpose of promoting health,
safety, moral and general welfare. Said the City should come into
compliance with the state statute concerning homes for the developmentally
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 23
disabled, pointing out that the present proposal has a lower limit for
the number of individuals in a home than the state statute. Stated the
City has a responsibility to protect neighborhood families and provide
them some domestic tranquility and some freedom from the stresses of
external inputs which they might be forced to withstand if homes for
persons with addiction and criminal problems were allowed in their
neighbhoods. Stated provisions should be made for homes for the
developmentally disabled in conformance with the statute, and for
shelter homes as they had had a burden imposed upon them from birth.
Stated he distinguishes that kind of an affliction from one which is
acquired from drug addiction or criminal behavior. Said that despite
Larico's good record he had concern about these kinds of homes in more
vulnerable communities. Said that any group home should be placed in
some location with ready access to public transportation, convenience
stores and drug stores. Stated that to protect the R-H zone and any
others, consideration should be given to spacing requirements between
homes, whatever the type. Said he could not recommend approval of the
proposal as presented.
Moved recommendation of approval to City Council of an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance which would provide for all state licensed group homes
for the developmentally disabled, serving not more than eight develop-
mentally disabled persons,in any residential zone in the City of Fort
Collins; which would also provi:<, for homes for abandoned children and
other homeless persons, excluding homes for persons with addiction and
criminal problems which will remain as they presently do, with the
requirement that any group homes be spaced adequately apart from one
another as set forth in the report, and with homes for the developmentally
disabled and for abandoned children that they be placed not further than
500' from public transportation and convenience and drug stores.
Included in the motion is the stipulation that only homes for the
developmentally disabled and shelter care homes would be permitted outside
the districts in which they are currently allowed, and that all other
types of group homes would remain under present zoning.
Jean Adams: Employee for the Department of Social Services. Expressed concern with
the term "abandoned", noting there are not really many abandoned children.
Spahr: Suggested using the term, shelter care.
Bavoso: Stated that the children who come into shelter care are the same ones
who eventually end up in Larico, so if shelter care is included, that
could also become a problem. Said that not all of their youth are those
involved in criminal offenses or with drugs, but those who need super-
vision.
Weddell: Stated he sees the Board as trying to determine therapeutic considerations
which perhaps the specialists or therapists are better equipped to handle.
Contended thaw��td ��oup home for minor developmentally disabled children
should be near public transporation is immaterial. Said that a home's
location near a convenience is an issue for the licensing agency to
determine, and not an appropriate issue for inclusion in a zoning ordinance.
P. Wells: Agreed with Weddell's statement. Expressed concern with the designation
of vulnerability of zones, noting that higher density zones may have even
P & Z Minutes •
6/26/80
Page 24
more people than others.
Eckman:
Said that is probably a semantic problem with his terminology, and that
he feels that zones where there are more young children need protection
from the addicted and criminal types.
Mitchell:
Stated nobody ever felt the need to protect her child when she lived in
the R-H zone, but brought in anything they wanted to. Suggested it might
be better for each group home application to come in for review than to
severely amend the proposed amendment. Said originally she did not want
that because the Board would be subject to many long hearings and abuse
by neighborhoods, but that that would be preferable to too many amendments.
Eckman:
Said the reason he included convenience stores and transporation services
was because the statute says that municipalities could use those for
valid considerations in locating group homes, but that he could delete
that portion of the motion.
Ruggiero:
Noted that in the particular case to which Eckman referred, involving
Adams City, it was a situation where they had special permit review so
the city council considered those services at their hearings and the court
ruled which things could be taken into consideration. Stated that in
the case of use by right such things would not be taken into consideration.
Bob Severe:
House Manager at Community Corrections Halfway House. With reference to
the roles of the P & Z Board and the licensing agencies, stated it would
help to have more information on what such agencies require. Said their
licensing agency is the state Department of Corrections and they work
under a contract. Stated that 24-hour awake supervision is already
required by them. With respect to so-called anti -social houses, said
it should be understood that people come to such homes three months
before being released from prison, so if they do not come into a half -way
house, they will go into every neighborhood in the city --back where
they came from. Said no area in the city is free from crime, but
that they try to channel people back into the community in more appropriate
ways than those in which they left. Contended they are probably far more
strict than what the Board's ideals might be.
P. Wells:
Stated, then, that homes for people with anti -social behavior are more
usually transitional from institutions into the community rather than
alternatives to incarceration.
Severe:
Stated that is partially true, but that they serve in both capacities, and
some judges do sentence people directly from the court. Noted that there
are hundreds of people in Fort Collins who are on probation for the same
crime that others go to Canyon City for, and their only requirement is to
send a written report to a probation officer once a month or to see him
once a month. People are often sent to halfway houses by judges in order
to provide more supervision for them, and because they may have potential
for rehabilitation in a halfway house without having to be incarcerated.
Spahr:
Said this has been very helpful, and asked that Severe 's and other agencies
respond to the question of the protection or lack of it that the public
has because of staff supervision and client supervision and placement.
P & Z Minutes
6/26/80
Page 25
Severe: Stated he favors educating people in the community and would be happy to
provide the Board with a cope of their regulations within the week.
Haase: Stated that since it was late and three of the Board members were absent,
that perhaps they were not ready to offer a recommendation to City Council.
Noted that all the information they had received has been most helpful,
and that there is a real need for additional discussion and more expertise
from the social and humanitarian community. Said the issue is very
important and suggested continuing it until the July meeting.
Smith: Suggested setting up a special work session to get more input and to get
more consensus from the Board as to changing the amendment or not.
Haase: Agreed that would be a good solution.
Moved to refer the subject ordinance amendment to a special work session
to be held in July before the next regular meeting.
Eckman: Second.
Wells: Stated she is opposed to postponing the issue as it had been discussed
four years ago and postponed; there are too many meetings already; and
the decision must be made at a public meeting, so this will all have to
be gone through again.
Spahr: Stated he would vote no because he is prepared to support the original
resolution.
Wells:
Stated
she also would support the
original resolution.
Vote:
Haase:
yes; Wells: no; Spahr: no;
Eckman: yes.
Wells:
Asked
for another motion.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval to City Council of the proposed amendment
with the addition that 24-hour authorized supervision on the premises be
added to the definition of group homes.
Spahr: Second.
Vote: Eckman: no; Spahr: yes, explaining his reversal by saying that it is
improper to go for a special permit use as the Board will not be any
better qualified to rule on social impacts in the future than tonight;
Wells: yes; Haase: yes, commending Deibel for a fine, comprehensive report,
and supporting the normalization treatment concept, and stating that the
community has a responsibility to offer a fair zoning ordinance with open
locations for group homes.
Motion carried, 3 - 1.
Wells: Stated that Gary Spahr would no longer be on the Board after tonight, and
thanked him for his service, saying that he had been a great asset to the
Board.
Spahr: Expressed his appreciation to the staff for their help and cooperation.
P & Z Minutes • .
6/26/80
Page 26
and also to the other members of the Board.
Wells: Adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:00 a.m.
I
HANDICAPPED ADVISORY COMMITTEE
.JUN 23 1980
Planning
Department
Planning and Zoning Board
P. 0. Box 580
Port Collins, Colo. 80522
Gentlemen:
June 19, 1980
The Handicapped Advisory Committee has reviewed and dis-
cussed the proposed regulation of group homes under the zoning
ordinance which the city of Port Collins is considering.
?:'e would hereby like to express our approval and support
for enactment of same. There has long been an exigent need
for the establishment of such dwellings, which would offer
more viable options toward greater independence for all han-
dicapped citizens.
We will be anxiously awaiting further developments on
this issue. If we can be of assistance in any way, please do
not hesitate to contact us. I can be reached at my home phone,
221-1018, during evening hours.
Resoectfully yours,
HANDICAPPED ADVISORY CC^/IIITT'FE
s^
Robert :?ells
Chairman
bg
cc
Ll
•
i
Paul Deibel
Fort Collins, Colorado
Zoning anti Planning Board
June 20, 1980
Dear Zoning and Planning Board Member:
Introduction
Due to a prior commitment, I will be out of town the week of
June 22 and will be unable to attend the scheduled hearing
regarding group homes. Being unable to attend this meeting
of June 23 and/or June 26, I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to submit written comments and documentation regarding
group homes.
Before I start with my comments, let me make it perfectly
clear that they are based on actual experiences and information
gathered while living next door to one of these mini institu-
tions (group homes) for approximately three years. My comments
are based on actual experiences and are not unwarranted fears
and apprehensions. This phrase "unwarranted fears and appre-
hensions" is a favorite of group home advocates, and they use
it quite extensively when confronted with problems expressed
by concerned individuals regarding their group home operations,
and I see it also appears in Mr. Deibel's report.
Regarding Mr. Deibel's report, it is unfortunate that it is
so slanted toward the proponents of group homes and not much
appears in the report as to problems with group homes. 'Get
a proponent of group homes on his soap box, and his speech
will be very similar to this report, except for the specific
proposals for Fort Collins.
In defense of Mr. Deibel, he has been very cooperative to
work with. He was given a tough job, and where else was he
to go for his information unless given the staff, money, and
man -power to gather information more meaningful. In addition,
proponents of these facilities are very expert at informing
you of group home residences' rights and the possibility of
Law suits, etc.
Comments
In presenting my continents I will take specific parts of the
Deibel Report and make comments thereto.
s
page 2
Pages 2 and 4 of the report, paragraphs II A through C, attempt
to define group homes as family -type settings and not as
institutions. The only way these homes can be considered a
familty setting is the home proponents choose to define them
as such. After living next to a group home for three years
and observing the operation, I would have to define a group
home as a Mini Institution, and by no stretch of the imagination
could a group home be called a family -like atmosphere.
Pages 4 and 5, paragraph II D:
On page 5 subparagraph D reference is made to types licensing
agencies considered appropriate for group homes. Despite what
is printed in this paragraph, I can give you a specific case
where a severely mentally retarded individual and an individual
with a known pattern of violence were placed in the same home.
If you are interested in further information on this case, I
can give you names, ages, photographs, incidences of specific
violence, whatever you might want. This occurred despite
assurance from the group home people that such things do not
happen. I do not know how you feel about this sort of thing,
but it scares me, and I think it a justifiable fear. What makes
things worse, I call your attention to attached Exhibits one and
Two, which cause me to question somewhat the reliability of the
agencies in control.
Paragraph II E page 5 refers to unwarranted fears and appre-
hensions because of unfamiliarity with nature and intent. I
lived next to one for three years, and my comment is that I am
familiar with nature and intent of a group home and consequently
feel more strongly than ever that they are not to be placed in
a neighborhood, and most fears and apprehensions are certainly
warranted. The statement "properly run facilities will not
create any neighborhood impact and that were any such problems
do arise a group home's license could be revoked" is garbage.
How long would you guess it would take to get a license revoked?
Think of some of the nursing homes that have been allowed to
operate in filth and slum -like conditions, and licensing agency
does nothing until pushed by newspaper, radio, or someone else
that is fed up with the situation.
I can site you a situation where a yard was allowed to deteriorate
by at least 95%, extreme filth existed inside the dwelling,
holes were knocked in doors and walls, window screens were
allowed to blow away in the wind. Proponents of these homes
claim homes cause no problems in a neighborhood, but a state-
ment made by Hazel Belcher of Larimer County Social Services
at the June 16th meeting was, "If too many of these facilities
are placed in an area, you can create ghettos." Doesn't this
seem contradictory?
page 3
Page 8, paragraph IV:
This paragraph disturbs me a great deal in that it states the
generally superior approach is not the permit but the use
subject to specific conditions and limitations, etc., and
the latter lends itself best to Fort Collins. I don't know
what lends itself best to what, but if we need group homes
(and the need can be strongly debated), I would strongly
recommend the permit system. A permit system would alert the
neighborhood on what is happening, prepare them for it, and
once the promoters of the house had sold the neighborhood,
would result in a much more successful relationship.
Not going the permit route is a cop-out by home proponents and
whoever else it might fit. They have not done a good job of
selling, choose not to do so, and prefer sneaking in and scaring
the hell out of people, and they have the attitude that here
we are, we have a right to be here, put up with us. I can pro-
vide you with documentation on this too if you are interested.
Paragraph V:
Talk about something disturbing. This paragraph implies if
you license the home by the state, screen your residence, have
your size requirements spelled out, everything will be ok.
Not if you are going to leave it the hands of social services,
state agencies, etc. The home located next to us was licensed
by the state, run by a local board, and they could have cared
less or lacked the expertise to get their act together. Boys
from this home went out to shovel walks once for neighbors and
were asked not to come back because of their performance and
behavior. Your best change for quality, compatibility, and
accountability is to require them to be run as a foster home.
Paragraph VI:
I hope your definition of a group home is not too broad and
still affords citizens paying the bill some protection.
As to numbers I would recommend the resident numbers shown be
maximum including supervisors and no allowance for increased
numbers because of lot sizes, particularly in R-L zones.
In the house next to us they put 6-8 residents with two house
parents, and the demand on the supervisors was overwhelming.
Turnover in supervisors was tremendous.
Regarding the requirement of 24 hour supervision, I think this
good but I would like to point out that bodies on the payrall
don't necessarily mean good supervision. Supervision was a
constant problem with our neighbors. See Exhibit 3 attached.
This was our answer to getting better supervision, and things
got worse instead of better.
page 4
One final comment. I had to leave the June 16th meeting
early mainly because it was turning into the same old thing
I have heard before about how great group homes are. In
visiting with Mr. Deibel the day after the meeting, I was
informed that a man by the name of Paul Holdeman made a
comment to the effect that local homes are run by local boards
and are pretty accountable. Just to keep the record straight, ,
I submit the following. At the time the group home was
approved in our neighborhood, Mr. Holdeman was chief probation
counselor, 8th Judicial District, and president of the board
responsible for our home. When things got hot and we finally
ran Mr. Holdeman down, he admitted to not knowing much about
the home, and that it was pretty much a rubber stamp deal.
In defense of Mr. Holdeman, he was not the only one that did
not know what was going on. The entire board was pretty much
in the dark and were not aware of the problems that existed
until the neighborhood finally forced a meeting with them
after about 2 years of trying and frustration. The same people
are still around and making the decisions.
Conclusion
The value and need for group homes can be strongly debated and
are not as necessary as proponents contend. If the private
sector was granted the time and money to contradict the
bureaucrats, I would bet accurate studies
could be obtained as to why no group homes. The greatest
benefits from the group home in our neighborhood went to
administrators for their salaries and to the real estate
people renting the property. They did quite well. I call
your attention to Exhibit 4, another example of dissatis-
faction with a group home. Information like this is available
all over if you just want to take the time to go after it.
If the city of Fort Collins is set on group homes (and it
appears they are), I strongly suggest the permit system. This
would at least force the house promoters to alert people and
explain their program. You are making a decision that is
going to affect the lives of a large segment of the Fort Collins
population, and the population has really no idea what is
happening to them until a house shows up next door. Just as
the group home residents have the right to live where they
want (as per proponents), the citizen, paying taxes, supporting
these programs, has a right to know what is going on. It is
kind of odd ghat, at the meeting June 16t.h, 15 people were in
attendance, and of the 15,seven were group home promotcrs,with
the city, etc. The remainder represented the populous paying
page 5
the bill. I would venture to guess that proponents will be
the best represented at your June 23 and/or 26 meeting too.
Finally, as much or more can be said against group homes as
for. This information is available and can be documented. If
you are interested, I have quite a portfolio on group homes,
and you can go through it any time. If you want group homes, ,
come up with a system where you control them and not someone
else.
Thank you,
I
Olin Ruff
213 E. Swallow Rd.
Fort Collins, Colorado
11 How sane are releasrA told.
(.-. X r��1-�- z is FL-
-- 9NOWMA88, Colo. (AP) — Crimina.ls criminal behavior oftel>rWorka.
judged insane typically are released to
than "a flip of the aolri". t :.
from the Colorado State liospital at Pueb- Dennis Pearson also prsdict*4[.Ii ut A
to after a 80•minute discussion with a pay- report requested by GOV., atabarMLOAM,
chlatric team, according to the hospital's on recent killings VY former mentlSpi=
chief psychologist. tients will state -that ptedleting futui*
He said the predicting process of criminal behavior in patients is imposed:•
whother the patient will have future ble. - _
i
r v T
f XI{Y UTr .-a o.E v"� rev mN
1 ..N�. m " .S •� c
� � C
rr
p � .. moor,; '... N a. CI
.c .ch o Z oam.°Otia a
F1 vi �" 9 N:O' Wl C Hd
..• �_yboGro� p�Ng6
vs,$ �uu
`/ mL omra WNwfpS v�i o
idmoC, o
.p saCC'. m •yp� y�6 I u VC1 �1
• N `4, d N m in p r,. � y Ql
�.LrNt�aN Wu °Im �C�1> N
.. � CD •� � m G YI O �.. CC .� y iil�
07
�•-,
U �.... � .r., •� yL H o U
A �ax6 y�.s� �o
u _
V ya i3-
1 .d •p m CL.C. 'pCn A x N GN. e!
6, m � .'J r.' Y .'.0 N Y 4J' � m E •4 'O
W N N p O W N
ba
�+ V L .-. ti V m C C V v�W.• u
rG Nw pp rci �'y=�{.O .N: Y,,QtiQ Nb N.�N GC
.L4.5w
A r ce or,
W l X( r; 1 'd i l 4• rtl �•' rl / F
.7 4 J = . G !y Cl •� 2l {� �� N 1/ ,'r P.1 F:
Z z' sL� y, �� �pw�av Wig` o K�
� �W � :v ap. m � :° is ,� y c, ��+ om�b•r�^. 'm _ 3m y G•a.b CQ c�
�6 �u bs'oal�w �Lp'oor ya'oovpi o,B r'G Anum��.
^` a m , W ,ui p.- �Uw oa'd'V.?mE'+`r7'
v
W C V p
O r.- N L O � i+ i y .0 LUrx Cl :C L V i
IfIN N « Ul y •0 W.0 u N
u a o 'v5i r" u
ac'�.Sm 5p._.mco �x�yop�m.p-_ cti
at
( c c x/r)
LACK OF TRAINING
Leidig Attacks
Health Policy
''� Ten years later it is evident
FRO M P A G E t J that the good intentions of the
.. ✓ new view of mental health went
the way of many good inten-
constructed to house these
back -ward patients. One ad-
ministrator recalls that one day
[in patients were brought to the
nursing home from the state
hospital, and the next day 40
were brought up."
The attempt to get patients
out of institutions and into com-
munity, facilities began in the
late 1950s and early 1960s.
Nationally, then -President
John F. Kennedy called for a
totally new view of what could
be done for the mentally ill. In
1963 Congress passed the Com-
munity Mental Health Centers
Act.
OPPOSED CELLS
In Colorado, then -Gov. Steve
McNichols o p p o s e d building
more cells in prisons and rooms
in state hospitals.
'-We must shift emphasis
from confinement to rebabili-
tatiun." McNichols said in his
inaugural address. "We must
work out carefully constructed
programs that will help restore
more of these people to useful
places in society. at the same
(line saving sllhstantial sums to
our taxpayers."
The intent of the federal leg-
islation and of mental -health
processionals, said Dr. Leidig,
was to begin treating the men-
tally ill closer to home, to
reduce the number who spent
years in mental hospitals ands
to make possibly more family
cunlact for Iouse undergoing
ps; chiatric treatment.
It was hoped that the fled-
gling mental -health centers and
outreach teams from state hos-
pilals would provide psychiatric
services lur lhusu soul to
community facilities.
Unfortunately, Leidig said,
many of thmw dischm-ged from
state hospitals, especially the
elderly, had no place to go.
Their families were gone or
didn't want them. They had no
iesnurcea of their own.
Uomding and nursing homes
tions — the bright hopes
gradually dimmed and flickered,
Indeed, some of the mentally
ill were able to go back home
and receive treatment as out.
patients at mental health
centers. But the centers
couldn't possibly grow fast
enough to serve all, Lecdig said,
For those who had to go to
nursing homes, the "back to
the community" illusion was
most painfully shattered.
"The shift from institutions to
nursing homes was seen as put-
ting people into the communi-
ty," McCoy said.
1 challenge very much
whether a nursing dome is in
the community, except geo-
graphically. instead, it is less
involved with the community,
almost certainly offers less
social and recreational possibil-
Aies than do state_ hospitals,"
he added,
The intent to cut down the
number of years people spend
in institutions also failed.
SIMPLY TRADED
"All we did was trade back
wards in slate hospitals for
smaller back wards spread
across the state," Leidig said.
"Nursing homes have taken
on the same image as the old
mental institutes," according to
McCoy. "They are places where
people go to stay until they
That the move to hoarding
and nursing homes would mean
more rontact with families
hasn't been borne out either.
Leidig said.
"I don't have any statistics,
but from my experience and
(hat of other mental-healthpen•
plc, the mmouut of conlact with
the family goes down when the
patient moves from a hospital
to a nursing home," he said,
Neither of the officials sav
nursing homes have no place In
the health-care scheme,
"There will always be people
Who need custodial care, and
there will he hoo"I" , k
First of all, we realize that our decision to remain at our pre-
sent location ding a more constructive ternative for the
boys will contme to meet with your disaPWoval. In our defense,
E we can only say that we do believe we have a right to remain and
?J that, in the absence of a preferable living situation, we have no
alternative but to continue to make the best of an admittedly bad
np�^�+►,,,,-hood situation. --- � `
This is not to say, however, that we will not make every effort
to improve the atmosphere of the home so as to more suitably meet
neighborhood standards. Your suggestion that the houseparents be
selected with this in mind is a commendable one. We ask you to:
appreciate that the existing houseparents, whose credentials we
feel were the best available, have been newly hired and should be. `s..
given a chance. Nonetheless, in the event replacement becomes
necessary, we will give every consideration to your suggestion that,/,
a duly qualified older couple be considered for the position; and .1
the Board has made a recortuaendation to administration accordingly: 2,(�
We should further point out, however, that funding is again a
problem; a married couple is simply not eligible for the same
salary that is available to individuals. As a result, our married `
couples are having to get by as best they can on a salary appro-
priate to the needs of a single individual. This again creates
a problem in locating the ideal houseparents.
1 mesfor retarded
state institu'" is sh'd ,
r;dltor: I would also like to
homesunitwouldd not be needed• t
thank the News and Bill Pardue
for the articles on the State
These unfq.timak,pewle need I
others
Homes for the mentally re
to be with their own kind,
the
who are like them, and live Ina
Larded, but there. should. have
been one more article in this'
world
liktiworld, . s pop; , t
'=world a Ge `
series from the patents' view-
and not
yondtheirlimitations. i
pointof the mentally retarded.
M W
I'm afraid most people get the
Lakewood
impression that these institu-
tions are filled with orphaned
'abandoned, unwanted children
Spedal inter esh
'and that no one realty cares
what happens to them. Far
Editor: In �Po�mto Gar
WBIs' June "Huai
from it, Most of the residents
13 colun: -
have parents who care very
tress, not puma'• is well o- '
deeply.
We have had to face the real.
tested in Weshington." Hidden
the
between the I1nea d article
►ration that this child is differ•
n consumer
�Q consumer
entand will not be accepted by a
' Q F cemove Ne ord "Free" '
normal soNety.Toprotect them
from ke Free
from further hurt we turned to
System im more bust. '
the state institutions because
ness etra ing government
that is the only place for them.
M. frok.'
Most of the mentally retarded
' This' artle norea two
have, physical handicaps, also.
tnalor Points: I businew:
Their health Is not good, their
UMt are the ability- '
speech is Impaired 'and they
fe Can ante p9
anyonewatdthesepeopleroam-a'g
ing the streets today,by them-
2) W ag
selves?
poxrorfW I In Al
They are not accepled by the
organised 1a ,�svatld IW
wed•
normal world and this was
made veryevident last .year
TM'compel W nature. of
when a home was proposed in
&pedd Interes i,.each striving,,
Westminster for el mentally
for theirtheopen mar.retarded
youft. The neighbor.
ketdp end up' total represaot;;-
inpIlia.gene
hood was up, in arms over this
community home livingproJecl.
al interest."
Remove pervas ve government
As a parent who allowed my
to be placed in
aftttrd; and only that will you,
remove, the teed for strong
child one of these
community homes I',disagree
: .
lobbyinggroupa.
ROBERRTD.
with. this .concept entirely. It
MUMONI)
was Jtutanother disappoint-
Norttlgle m
mtat Jgr;baa,,:anq,.al kemely
+ ?rrvx P.
upsatting•,They arettthean'
i", .,
Rlti service .
&war.
The answer to most of us par-
itdl .: RTD did ' it again1
ents is more funding for the
Sunda , June t2, new schedulge .
state institutions,,for, better
and changes Into ef.
buildings, more techniclans,'
fend with or arping to
programs suited to theseioeds.
bus avere `
Not community* tames in nor-
NOTPvallabia t,
mal neighborhoods where they
„,
d the°change; e.tU
are not wanted. If t¢ay, ould
avAtlable tWo ay, tel
live in this type d tame they'd
Worse; the town InE
all be In their own homes and
,o
tiom Center did OT have new
' CEP I' 193�
CORRECTION
TO THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
OF
June 23, 1980
Addition to Smith's report: Stated the ordinance permits the Planning
and Zoning Board to grant only a six-month
extension, therefore the request would have
to be amended to read six months instead of
twelve.
Amend Ross's motion to read: Moved approval of the request for a six-
month extension.