Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/14/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting - May 14, 1987 Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 14, 1987, at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Barnett, Lieser, Lawton, and Lancaster. Boardmembers Absent (Excused): Walker, Thede, Coleman Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 9, 1987 - Approved as Published The minutes of the April 9, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1807 Section 118-93 (B)(4), by Fred Gardner for Gardner Signs, 3835 S. College Avenue - Denied. ---The variance would increase the sign allowance from 300 square feet to 328 square feet for the Foothills Chrysler dealership located in the HB zone. Specifically, the variance is requested to allow two additional 19 square foot signs to be installed on the east wall of the building to identify the "Yugo" line. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ---Staff comments: The property is currently using up 290 of its 300 square foot allowance. The hardship is somewhat self-imposed in that the dealership could take down some of its current signage. On the other hand, the proposed signs are fairly small and may not make much of an impact." Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that Foothills Chrysler had 300 sq. ft. of allotted sign allowance and is currently using 290 sq. ft.. The proposal is to put two individual letter signs on both sides of the "Foothills" sign which would require a variance for an additional 28 square feet. Paul Morresy, representing Gardner sign, stated that Foothills Chrysler would be the exclusive dealership for the Yugo line in the northern Colorado area and was under extreme pressure from the manufacturer to provide adequate exposure for their product. He said that as an alternative to a zoning variance, they considered converting the existing freestanding sign to a groundsign in order to gain 150 sq. ft. of bonus signage. However, the Chrysler Corporation would not allow any changes in 7.BA Minutes - May 14, 1987 Page 2 the existing sign. Mr. Morresy stated further that the "Yugo" sign available from the manufacturer is unattractive, and they propose to install two individual letter signs, to be compatible with the existing signs. Each sign would be made up of 2' tall letters spanning 9' in length. The Board discussed several alternatives that could eliminate the need for a sign variance, such as eliminating one of the "Yugo" signs, sizing down the "Foothills" dealership sign, and converting the freestanding "Chrysler" sign to a ground sign, or reducing the size of the lettering on the "Yugo" signs. Boardmember hawton said that although the proposed signs would not have that much visual impact because the "Foothills" sign already covered most of the front of the building, he felt that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Lancaster did not want to set a precedent by granting the variance. Boardmember Barnett agreed that the hardship was self-imposed because there were alternatives that would not require a variance. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny the variance for lack of hardship. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: Lieser. Appeal #1808 Section 118-97 (D), 118-97 (E), by Al Vindiola, 224 West Mountain - Approved with Conditions. ---The variance would allow a barber shop to have a revolving sign. Specifically, the variance would allow an existing, traditional barber pole sign to revolve. The barber shop is located in the BG zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The revolving barber pole is part of Americana and shouldn't be prohibited. When the City required the pole to be shut off, business was affected and some of the customers thought the store was not open. The pole would not present any traffic hazard, nor'detract from the streetscape if it were allowed to revolve. ---Staff comments: The Board has granted all of the variance requests which have been similar in nature to this. The Board has always placed the following conditions on the previous variances: 1. The pole be attached to the building. 2. The pole can revolve only during business hours. 3. No writing is allowed on the pole. 4. The pole can only be used in connection with the barber shop. 5. The pole can be no larger than the existing pole. 6. The variance is for the specific pole presented to the board." Petitioner Al Vindiola spoke in favor of the. variance, stating that his ZBA Minutes - Ma04, 1987 • Page 3 business had dropped of by $2000 last year. Mr. Vindiola felt that he was losing business because customers thought that he was not open when he barber pole was turned off. He felt that the barber pole was a traditional sign for his profession and that its revolving was not a hazard. The Board discussed the variance and concluded that this variance was similar to those granted in the past. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, with the following conditions: 1) the pole be attached to the building, 2) the pole can only revolve during business hours, 3) no writing is allowed on the pole, 4) the pole can only be used in connection with the barber shop, 5) the pole can be no larger titan the existing pole, 6) the variance is for the specific pole presented to the board. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lieser, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal #1809 - Tabled. Appeal #1810 - Tabled. Appeal #181.1 Section118-81 (C)(1), by Robert Geary, 228 N. Grant - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building instead of within the dwelling. Specifically, a new garage/workshop will be built and the owner proposes to repair weight machines which can't be repaired on site. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The weight machines weigh over a ton and the petitioner needs a hoist to unload the machines. They are too heavy to be worked on inside the house. There will be no noise and no clients will be coming to the home in connection with the business. The owner will pick-up and deliver. ---Staff comments: The proposed garage is quite large, but it will be located where an existing, large carport/shed is now, so the ground coverage of buildings, while increasing, is not increasing by the total amount of the new structure." Petitioner Robert Geary spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he has a weight repair business, and he needs to have an enclosed area to work on weight machines that can not be repaired in school gymnasiums. Mr. Geary submitted elevation plans to the Board for review. Mr. Geary stated further that the new building would be an improvement over the existing structure, and there would be a firewall between the remaining garage and the new garage. He felt that his business would have little impact on the neighborhood - there would be no outside storage, no employees, and no customers would be coming to his home in connection with the business. Boardmember Lawton said that he had no problems with the requested variance, but he wanted to know if the variance stays with the property. Mr. Barnes said that the variance would stay with the property, but the ZBA Minutes - May14, 1987 • Page 4 Board could condition it on this type of business, or a pick-up and delivery type of business only. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that it be limited to a weight repair business with pick-up and delivery service only. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lieser, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal #1812 Section 118-43 (C), 118-82 (17)(1), by Wayne Neilson of REM Consulting Services, 212 Park Street - Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a group home in the RM zone for 4 developmentally disabled persons. The variance would also allow the group home to be closer than 1000 feet to an existing group home. Specifically, it would be within 850 feet of the home at 820-822 W. Mountain. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: Group homes are allowed as a use by right in the RM zone, and this particular home meets all requirements except the lot width and separation. The lot is existing and was platted a long time ago with only 50 feet of width. No additional land is available to buy. This proposed group home is separated from the one on Mountain Avenue by an arterial street, Laporte Avenue, which acts as a physical barrier and separates the two neighborhoods. Therefore, this home should not amount to over -concentration in the Park Street neighborhood. ---Staff comments: Many of the institutions which have housed developmentally disabled persons are closing down, and the State has been trying to find locations and operators for group homes in which to place these people for some time now. It has been hard to find suitable property in Fort Collins that is close to transportation, one of the State's requirements. The State has declared in their State statutes that the establishment of state -licensed group homes for the developmentally disabled is a matter_ of statewide concern and that such a home for up to 8 persons is a residential use of property. The intent of the separation requirement is to prevent an over -concentration of group homes in any one neighborhood. The petitioner is contending that these two group homes which are 850 feet apart are not in the same "neighborhood". If the Board approves this variance they should put a condition on the number of residents allowed." Petitioner Wayne Neilson, representing REM Consulting Services, spoke in favor of the appeal. He stated that although a variance was needed for the lot width, the total lot area met code requirements. The proposed group home would be separated from the closest facility by 850 feet, which would more than meet the state's requirements. Mr. Neilson said that the facility would house only four people, and would be maintained in good repair. He then cited a study dated September 1986, Evanston Illinois, a study by the Governor's Planning Council for the Developmentally Disabled. This study surveyed over 2000 residential properties in connection with ZBA Minutes — May , 1987 Page 5 group homes and concluded that group surrounding neighborhood with respect the neighborhood. • homes did not adversely affect the to property values, and stability of Boardmember Lieser asked how much staff would be needed for the group home and about the parking situation. Mr. Neilson said that one staff person would be supervising the home at all times, and occasionally there would be a second staff person in training. The group home residents would not be driving so parking would be needed for the staff members only. There was a two car garage on the property which would be adequate for staff needs. Alan Arlofski, with `the Colorado Division for Developmental Disabilities, spoke in favor of the appeal. He conducted a site survey and went through an extensive check list for suitability of the property for a group home. Items such as availability of public transportation, proximity of convenience stores, and availability of city services were all considered. He stated further that the facility would be iointly licensed by the Colorado Department of Health and and the Colorado Division for Developmental Disabilities, and monitored on an annual basis. Mr. Arlofski stated that they required a 750 foot separation between group home facilities. Group homes could be licensed for as many as eight people, but this particular facility would house only four. The square footage of the house was a determining factor in the number of people housed, and this house only had adequate space for four people, so the number of people could not be increased in the future. Jim Tanner, 215 Park Street, spoke in opposition to the appeal. He said that he objected to the facility for three reasons. First, there were hundreds of homes on the market, and many of them could be used without a variance request. Secondly, the location is not suitable for several reasons. It is only 850 feet from an existing group home on Mountain street, and also, the house is located on an alley that school children use as a route to school. Mr. Tanner felt that this would be an invitation to conflict because the children would tease the group home residents. Thirdly, Mr. Tanner stated that, he objects to putting a group home in this location because there is a lopsided arrangement of group homes in the city, with most of them on the north end of town, and this would only make the situation worse. Mr. Tanner submitted a petition to the Board with 12 signatures, stating objections to the group home located at this address. Judy Alers, 920 LaPorte, spoke in opposition to the variance, stating her concerns that too many people would be living in the home. There were already problems with renters in the neighborhood, and having group home residents would pose similar problems. Joan Dimatteo, 918 LaPorte Avenue, spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that there were too many group homes in their area, and that it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Colleen Parr, 216 Park, spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that she agrees with the concerns that the concentration of group homes in their area was too great, and also that there was property available in other parts of town that would meet all the code requirements. ZBA Minutes — May 14, 1987 Page 6 Zoning Administrator Barnes explained that staff had been looking into some changes in the group home ordinance for about the last 6 months and was in the process of proposing some changes to City Council. One would be to reduce the separation requirement to 750 for elderly and disabled homes to be more in line state statutes. Also, currently, in RL and RE zones the separation can be reduced if a physical barrier (such as an arterial street) separates group homes. Another proposed change would be to make this reduction applicable to all zones. Mr. Barnes pointed out that this was only further information, and that the Board needed to base its decision on the existing statutes. Mr. Tanner said that he did not see the hardship. Mr. Neilson stated that the hardship was the economic considerations of the state budget, the limited availability of units that would meet the zoning code and the state requirements for group homes. Mr. Barnett asked Mr. Neilson if he could be more specific as to the requirements that needed to be met for a group home facility. Mr. Neilson listed the following requirements: 1) separation of 750 feet from an existing facility 2) availability of public transportation, 3) availability of shopping, 4) proximity to available of public recreational programs, and other city services, 5) square footage, room size, and available recreation space in the house. He stated further that there were very few properties that met all of these criteria and were in the proper zoning districts. Other properties that were considered would have had to be altered considerably, and some properties were located in neighborhoods where group homes were barred by neighborhood covenants. Boardmember Lancaster asked Mr. Tanner if he could explain some specific impacts that would result from locating a group home at this address. Mr. Tanner stated that an oversaturation of group homes in one neighborhood would change the balance of the neighborhood. It would feel more like a retirement community or a social work program type neighborhood, just like if you have a'neighborhood that has too high a density of rentals, it changes the character of the neighborhood. The property is then viewed differently by the people who buy it and develop it. Judy Alers said she worked in a nursing home for about one year, and when you have staff coming in and leaving it established a different kind of atmosphere. It becomes more like a business than a residence. Boardmember Barnett asked if any of the neighbors had talked with someone who lived near a group home to see if there were any problems associated with it. Mr. Tanner said that he spoke to a friend who lived near the Mountain Avenue group home, and the neighbor had said that she finds it a little disruptive because some of the residents wander and become disoriented. However, none of the residents have crossed LaPorte Avenue and do not walk in his neighborhood. Martha Pickett, attorney for REM, Inc., spoke in favor of the appeal. She pointed out that enforcement of the required lot width would prohibit any use of this lot. Ms. Pickett felt that. the 1000 foot separation ZBA Minutes - May 14, 1987 Page 7 requirement should not apply because the Mountain Avenue group home was in a different neighborhood, separated by an arterial street, and zoned differently. She stated further that although the closest group home is 850 feet as the crow flies, by driving or walking along the streets it is at least 1/3 mile away. She felt that the spirit and the intent of the code was met by the existing 850 foot separation. Boardmember Lawton felt that in dealing with the lot width, it would be necessary to grant a variance for any change of use on this property. The main issue in question is the separation issue. Boardmember Lancaster felt that the main issue was the separation issue and he did not see what the hardship was other than financial issues. He felt that the intent of the code was the 1000 feet separation, and that it should be enforced. Boardmember Barnett stated that the 1000 foot separation standard was to lessen the institutional impact on the neighborhood. However, because there is not much circulation from the Mountain Ave. group home to the Park Street area, LaPorte Avenue does seem to be a barrier. Boardmember Lawton said that he still did not see the hardship. The realtor representing REM, Inc, stated that the hardship was the shortage of available properties that would meet all the qualifications. She stated further that several other deals had fallen through before this property was selected because of neighborhood convenants prohibiting group homes. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to deny the variance due to lack of a hardship. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: Barnett. Appeal #1807 Section 118-93 (B)(4), by Paul Morresy, for Gardner Signs, a Rehearing Based on an Amended Request - Denied. Paul Morresy, representing. Gardner Signs, asked the Board to rehear Appeal #1807, with an'amended request. He asked that the Board consider granting a 9 sq. ft. variance to allow one "Yugo" sign to be installed for the Foothills Chrysler Plymouth dealership. He explained that he had made an error in calculating the sign allowance and thought that one sign would be allowed without a variance, otherwise he would have asked for the variance in the first hearing. Boardmember Lieser felt that the petitioner was making an attempt to conform to the code. Boardmember Lawton stated that part of his objection to the first request was that the petitioner had made no attempt to consider alternatives. He felt more comfortable with allowing a 9 sq. foot variance. Boardmember Lancaster said that he thought that it was still a self-imposed hardship. Boardmember Barnett agreed. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to deny the variance due to lack of a hardship. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Barnett. Nays: Lieser, Lawton. 7.BA Minutes — May , 1987 • Page 8 Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lieser. Nays: Lancaster, Barnett. The variance was denied due to lack of a majority vote. Meeting Adjourned. /_) Peter Barnes, Staff Support Dave Lawton, Vice —Chairman • Play 3,1937 Dear Neighbor, As you may or may not have been informed, an out-of-town business interest is planning to turn 212 Park Street into a group home for developmentally disabled persons (defined in the Colorado Code as "those persons having cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, mental retardation, autism, and epilepsy"). The developers have requested a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins in order to do this; specifically, they have asked for a reduction of required lot width from 50 feet to 50 feet. Since this modification is (according to Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes) a routine one for this part of town, the Zoning Board of Appeals is likely to grant the developer's request unless the people of this neighborhood present substantial arguments against the variance at the public hearing (scheduled for 3:30 AR, Thursday, Play 14, 1937 at 309 West Laporte Avenue). Ply purpose in writing this letter is to ask you to give the natter careful thought, and to make your opinion known on Play 14 to the Zoning Board of Appeals either in person or by letter addressed to then care of Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, Office of Building Inspection, City of Fort Collins, 300 West Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 30521. I strongly feel that the proposed project and the proposed variance are objectionable, for the following reasons: 1. There are literally hundreds of homes for sale in Fort Collins that meet the "group home" requirements of the Code without any variance whatever. The City is very inflexible when it cones to variances for individual homeowners --if you've ever tried to get a 2' variance to build a sunroom, or a 2" variance on a heat shield for a woodstove, you know what I mean --and the Zoning Board itself states that variances will be granted only by reason of "exceptional situations or conditions" that "result in exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property." Despite this strong wording, the Zoning Board in fact routinely gives 10' variances to developers (whose needs, apparently, are always "exceptional" in Fort Collins, but who in this particular case don't yet own the property and certainly would suffer no undue hardship if their appeal were denied.) 2. The house and lot in question meet other requirements of the Code very marginally. !While it (barely) meets the 5000-square-foot minimum lot size for group homes, it is in fact a large home on one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood, with minimal 5' side clearances, an extra house built on what used to be the back end of the lot, houses close by on all sides, a front street that is much narrower than most city streets, and a double garage that makes the usable area of the back lawn scarcely larger than many of our vegetable gardens. This is supposed to accommodate a mininum of 4 developmentally disabled adults, plus a supervisor or two legally, group hones in this area nay hold up to 15 people plus supervisors; how soon before we hear a request for another variance?). Furthermore, the lot is located on an east -west alley that is a thoroughfare for neighborhood childre-n avoiding Laporte Avenue on their way to Fullana School, Beaver's Market, or City Park. Such proximity is an invitation to conflict. The marginal quality of the house for family or group living is suggested by the fact that it has been on the market for two years, and has found no takers despite offering a very low cost/square foot ratio. One explanation: nobody in a position to judge for him or herself wants to live there. Crowding a group of developmentally disabled adults into this location, especially in view of the availability of numerous homes that are more adequate, is not doing these people any favors; the only person gaining from time arrangement will be the developer. 3. A third objection to locating a group home on Park Street is that it would worsen an already lopsided distribution of such group homes in the city. If you look at the map in the Office of City Planning you will see that the majority of these homes are located on the north side of town. Four or five are in the old east side; several more are in the northwest section. Very few have tiptoed south across Prospect into the bastions of yuppiedon, despite the fact that the Colorado General Assembly, in Legislative Declaration 31-23-303, clearly intends for such group hones to be distributed throughout Colorado communities, and specifically wants them in "normal residential surroundings" and single-family residences. Is the north side of town more "normal" than the south side? Does it offer rare desirable single-family residences? Or is it just that money talks --or objects --and the Zoning Board listens? Such a lopsided distribution of group homes suggests a hypocritical evasion of the purposes of the legislation, and is one more example of how real estate interests tend to rule this town. 4. !1y biggest and final objection: the City Code acknowledges that concentrating group homes in one area is not desirable; it specifically says that "in order to prevent the concentration of group homes and the potential negative impact that may be caused to a neighborhood by a high concentration of this type of facility," group hones will be separated by a distance of no less than 1000 feet in Residential-!iedium Density zones (our designation). There are already two such facilities in our area: one at the corner of Food and Cherry, and one at 320 West '1ountain Avenue (not to mention the public housing at Vine and Shields). The Wood Street group home is 1010 feet away from the proposed Park Street location --a few feet over two blocks. The West !fountain facility, however, is at most 700 feet from the proposed Park Street location --a little over a block away. Such close proximity is in clear violation of the City Code. There has been no request for a variance on this distance. If the 'DO' lot variance is granted and this discrepancy in distance goes unnoted, there will be three group ho-ies within two blocks of your front door. You might ask the members of the Zoning Board whether they enjoy similar arrangements in their neighborhoods. (1r. Barnes tells me that "technically" the Ilest 'fountain group home isn't a group home, because two "technical families" that aren't really families are living in a duplex that isn't really being used as a duplex. Yes, it's being run as a group hone, says Mr. Barnes, and yes, it's plotted on the City Planning map as a group home, but it isn't a group home --technically. Baloney.) 2. 0 Nobody in this neighborhood is a bigot; if we were, we'd have a hard time living with all the diversity this neighborhood offers. I've taught numerous handicapped and learning disabled young people for 17 years, grew up with an Alzheimer's patient in my home, and number among my friends several people with developmental problems. I've always been proud of the fact that in a city often characterized as having broad streets and narrow minds, this neighborhood is just the opposite; it is one area in town where students and retirees, singles and couples, Hispanics and Anglos and Blacks, disabled and "normal" --whatever that means --all live together and get along. But I also know that this is a neighborhood that has to fight to keep its balance, and that it is an area considered fair game for developers, for indifferent real estate investors, and for city administrators looking for a place to squirrel away the city's "problems" where nobody will make much fuss. I've lived in this neighborhood for 17 years; I'm more than willing to bear my fair share of the public obligation to every citizen's welfare, and have always supported public projects in spite of the fact that they frequently lead to losses in property values, loss of neighborhood homogeneity, and increases in disturbances and inconveniences. But enough is enough. Three group homes in as many blocks is unfair, hypocritical, and --if I read the Code correctly --illegal. I plan to make these points to the City Zoning Board next Thursday. Whether you agree with me or disagree, I hope you'll attend the meeting and make your views known. Should you be unable to write the Board directly or attend the meeting, but agree with my remarks, simply endorse this letter with your name and address and drop it in my mailbox (or nail it directly to the Board). Thank you for your attention and concern. Don't hesitate to drop b_v if you'd like to discuss this matter further. Jv im Tanner 215 Park Street P.S. If you are a renter and feel you have no real interest in this issue, please pass this letter on to your landlord. ENDORSE'IENT Name Address 3. G•HIIPs, KHAMEB, Gn sHAW & G A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SUITE 3800 ONE UNITED HANK CENTER 17W LINCOLN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 00203 TELEPHONE (303) 83R 3800 Raeoo��o: aos-eag-Oeae� MARTRA C. PICKETT (303)3 3702 TO: Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Martha C. Pickett(4-�C DATE: May 14, 1987 RE: Application for Zoning Variances REM Services, Inc., Applicant FACTS REM Services, Inc. is seeking variances from zoning regulations in order to establish and operate a home for developmentally disabled adults at 212 Park Street, Fort Collins. This group home will provide a residence for four developmentally disabled persons. The home will be licensed by the state and provide 24-hour waking supervision to the residents (i.e., supervisors are awake at all times to provide close supervision). During the day, residents will be away from the home at sheltered workshops or similar work situations.` The proposed group home is a permitted use within the R-M Medium Density Residential District within which it is situated. However, there are two zoning requirements from which the applicant seeks variances. These requirements are the minimum lot width requirement and the requirement that group homes be located 1,000 feet apart. Discussion of the two variance requests follows: I. Minimum Lot Width. The Fort Collins Code requires a minimum lot width of sixty (60) feet for a one or two-family dwelling, in � R-M zone. The subject property has a lot width of fi ty ( 0) feet. Most of the surrounding lots in thi neighborhood, established over 20 years ago, are only 40 fleet wide, which was the typical lot size in the city prior to 1965. Memo To: Fo Collins Zoning Board of l+eals May 14, 198 Page 2 The applicant has requested a variance from this lot width requirement because of the resulting hardship. Enforcement of this particular requirement would prohibit all permitted uses in R-M residential areas. The Fort Collins Code states that the Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a variance from zoning requirements where "by reason of exceptional narrowness . . . of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of this chapter . . . , the strict application of any regulation enacted herein would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property . . . " Section 118-20(B), Fort Collins Code. II. Separation Requirement. The Fort Collins Code requires that a group home in a R-M residential area be separated from any other group home by 1,000 feet. The Mountain Duplex group home, located at 822 Mountain Street, is allegedly within 1,000 feet of 212 Park Avenue. However, the applicant submits that the separa- tion requirement should not apply in this case since the Mountain Duplex is located in a different neighborhood, in fact, in a different zone. Mountain Duplex is located in a R-L zone, separated by a major arterial street from the R-M zone, in which the proposed group home is located. It is the obvious intent of the Code to prevent over concentration of group homes within one neighborhood, within the same residential zone. Even if the Board determines that the separation requirement applies here, the zoning code does not specifi- cally explain the rationale for the 1,000 foot separation requirement. The discussion under special review regarding a separationrequirement in the R-E and R-L areas explains that "this provision is intended to insure that the limited capacity of a neighborhood's existing social structure to accommodate group homes is not exceeded and, further, to protect such homes from over concentration within one (1) neighborhood thereby inadvertently recreating an institutional setting." Section 118-8(2)(b), Fort Collins Code. Colorado statutes provide that a local zoning regulation, "if reasonably related to the requirements of a particular home," may attach specific location requirements to the approval of the group home including the availability of such services and facilities as convenience stores, commercial services, transportation, and public recreation facilities". Section 30-28-115, C.R.S. The applicant submits that such services are amply available to the proposed home at 212 Park Street and that the neighborhood's existing social structure will not be exceeded. Memo To: Fo Collins Zoning Board of als May 14, 198 Page 3 Furthermore, the existence of the proposed group home would not recreate an institutional setting by virtue of its location in relation to another group home. In fact, although the closest group home to the proposed home is 00 feet away, that distance was determined by measurements on a zoning map, and was measured "as the crow flies." The shortest route by car to the Mountain Duplex group home is at least three tenths of a mile long, well outside the 1,000 foot separation requirement. It is important to note that the proposed group home is for only four residents. The trend to downsize group homes from the usual eight resident homes is the result of an effort by the state to encourage a more familial -like setting with closer supervision for developmentally disabled persons. With fewer residents per group home, the need for more group homes ensues, although the number of developmentally disabled persons will not increase within a given geological area. The Code also supports the applicant's request for a variance by lessening of the separation requirement in R-E and R-L areas where there is a "physical barrier, such as an arterial street . . ." which avoids concentration of group homes. Section 118-82(2)(b) Fort Collins Code. The two group homes at issue here are divided by a significant physical barrier. La Porte Avenue is a major arterial which intervenes and effectively separates the two physical neighborhoods involved. The special review section also notes that the separation requirement exists "in order to prevent the concentration of group homes and the potential negative impact that may be caused to a neighborhood by a high concentration of this type of facility." Section 118-82(2)(b), Fort Collins Code. Although it can be argued that this rationale is more relevant to a R-L or R-E zone, it does not apply to a R-M or higher residential area,. A R-M area, by its very definition, provides for a concentration of various group facilities in addition to group homes, including "meeting places and places of public assembly", planned unit developments, multi -family units and child care centers. See Section 118-43(A-H), Fort Collins Code. It is certainly appropriate that a group home be located in a zone where other group facilities are characteristic. Group homes have been found not to automatically impose negative impacts upon their neighborhoods. Colorado's public policy regarding homes for developmentally disabled persons: Memo To: Fo*Collins Zoning Board of A&als May 14, 1987 Page 4 The general assembly hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to assist developmentally disabled persons to live in normal residential surroundings. Further, the general assembly declares that the establishment of state -licensed group homes for the exclusive use of developmentally disabled persons is a matter of state-wide concern and that a state -licensed group home for eight developmentally disabled persons is a residential use of property for zoning purposes. The phrase 'residential use of property for zoning purposes' as used in this subsection (2), includes all forms of residential zoning and specifically, although not exclusively, single family residential zoning. Section 30-28-115(2)(a), C.R.S. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that a municipality cannot consider impermissible factors, such as "adverse effects of the group home on the 'single-family characteristics of the neighborhood," "peace and quiet of the neighborhood" and an "attitude of general hostility in a neighborhood towards this proposed facility" in its consideration of zoning approvals of a group home. Adams County Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., the City of Westminster, 196 Colo. 79, 580 P.2d. 1246, 1250 (1 778). III. Summary. REM Services, Inc., respectfully requests approval of the variances relating to minimum lot width and separation requirements. Both variances are essential to avoid unnecessary hardship upon the applicant since enforcement of either restriction will prohibit the use, of the property for the proposed group home. The discussion above shows that the spirit and intent of the Fort Collins Code will be met by the approval since the proposed group home for 212 Park Street will not be within 1,000 feet of another group home in the same neighborhood or residential zone. Furthermore, it is imperative that the City of Fort Collins honor the state's public policy to encourage placement of group homes in residential neighborhoods in an effort to integrate developmentally disabled persons into our society.