Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 3/7/2023 - 04 - Memorandum From Anissa Hollingshead Re: March 7, 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 12 – Additional Materials Relating To The Appeal [Group Home At 636 Castle Ridge Court] City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221-6295 - fax fcgov.com/cityclerk MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2023 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk RE: Agenda Item #12 – Additional Materials Relating to the Appeal Attached are additional materials received after publication of the agenda for tonight’s meeting: • A Powerpoint presentation from Appellant Johnson submitted March 6, 2023. • A Powerpoint presentation from the project applicants submitted March 7, 2023. • A document titled “Other Applicable Legal Authorities” submitted by the applicants’ attorney on March 7, 2023. These materials were submitted in accordance with City Code Section 2-55(d), which allows parties-in-interest to submit to the City Clerk a copy of all materials, including digital presentations, to be presented to the Council at the appeal hearing. In light of the limitations on admission of new evidence, admission of any such materials for consideration shall be subject to Council determination at the appeal hearing. Appeal of P&Z approval of group home at 636 Castle Ridge Court City of Fort Collins City Council 3/7/2023 hearing Representation Kurt/Laurie Johnson 612 Castle Ridge Ct Jesus Martin/Angie Lee 637 Castle Ridge Ct Steve/Kathy Chacho 631 Castle Ridge Ct Troy/Carrie Tafoya 5213 Castle Ridge Pl Barbara Schwerin 601 Castle Ridge Ct Tracey Stefanon/Ken Patrick Lily Patrick 642 Castle Ridge Ct Lawrence Mauch/Karen Kotecki 625 Castle Ridge Ct Representation (cont’d) Tom/Debbie Graff 624 Castle Ridge Ct Steve/Beth Williams 5301 Highcastle Ct Gregg Lesartre 619 Castle Ridge Ct Tony/Sarah Doing 5206 Castle Ridge Pl Michael Leuzze 5225 Castle Ridge Pl Dan Clawson 5219 Castle Ridge Pl Douglas/Katie Salter 613 Castle Ridge Ct Brad Sisson 600 Castle Ridge Ct Appeal –Section 3.5.1 (J) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards.Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for: 1.Hours of operation and deliveries 2.location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; 3.placement of trash receptacles; 4.location of loading and delivery zones; 5.light intensity and hours of full illumination; 6.placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; 7.location and number of off-street parking spaces. Issue at Hand •This particular project at this particular location •Recognize group homes are allowed •P&Z failed to apply conditions necessary to ensure neighborhood compatibility •Need Council to a pply such conditions and implement a staged approach to optimal number of residents Applying the Code •A given location can be either •Advantageous •Worthy to consider exceptions •Neutral •Careful case by case consideration for exceptions •Challenged •Extraordinary reason for exceptions, focus on conditions Advantageous Example: Seneca House •Recently approved for 10 residents •Operated at 8 residents for several years •Demonstrated compatibility •Key built -in advantages related to neighborhood compatibility •parking, circulation, street design, location Advantageous: Seneca House –street •Seneca St is city “secondary” street •Designed to support on-street parking on both sides, plowed •Seneca House has no neighbors to west •Lower impact to others •BUT … Castle Ridge is narrow/private street •Constrained already; not designed for parking on both sides Advantageous: Seneca House –driveway •Castle Ridge single entrance/exit •Seneca circular layout •Obvious to visitors/contractors •Better circulation •More space Seneca House –Impact •Email in packet from 3/22 hearing –Seneca House operating at 8 residents: •“Sometimes we run out of on-site parking but we have so much on-street parking that it is never an issue. We are in a unique situation because there is a middle school across the street and our northern neighbor’s house faces Craig St.” Challenged Example –Castle Ridge The Problem •LIMITED STREET PARKING •Driveways (red) fire hydrants (yellow) and entrance/exit leave very limited street parking •LOCATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD •Middle of street at narrowest point -chokepoint •DRIVEW AY •Long and narrow –parking 5 cars in the driveway is highly unlikely and impossible without musical cars •LIKELY PARKING IN FRONT AND ACROSS •Visitors, deliveries, services likely to park in front of and across the street from subject property creating one lane chokepoint •Downstream properties Challenged Example –Castle Ridge The Problem •CHO KEPO INT CREATED •Cars are parked on both sides of street, street becomes one lane •NARROW STREET OUT OF CODE •Variance predicated on 3-car garages •City rejected the private street •Sidewalks blend into curbs •No snow plowing •17 O THER RESIDENCES •Visitors, deliveries, services, maintenance, and potential need for emergency services Solution 1: Apply Conditions City Council is authorized under Municipal Code Sec. 2-56 (Council decision on appeal) and Land Use Code Sec. 3.5.1 (J) (Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards) to apply conditions of approval on an appeal from a decision of the P&Z Commission. Solution 1: Conditions to 3.5.1 (J)* Regardless of number of residents •hours of operation and deliveries (3.5.1 (J)(1)) –Limit deliveries and visits in time •location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare (3.5.1 (J)(2)) -Deliveries made off-street, required professionals to park off-street-Limit on-street parking •placement of trash receptacles (3.5.1 (J)(3))–Limit number and size of receptacles •location of loading and delivery zones (3.5.1 (J)(4))–Require off-street loading •location and number of off-street parking spaces (3.5.1 (J)(7)) -Require adequate off-street parking-Prohibit on-street/on-site van/bus parking The following conditions are necessary to ensure neighborhood compatibility: *Specifics on conditions are contained in the written statement Solution 2: Number of Residents Risk Management •10 vs. 8 residents there is a difference •Each resident has private services –example result in 25% increase for 10 vs. 8 Family Friends Clergy Hospice Physicians/PA Therapists Contractors Family Friends Clergy Hospice Physicians/PA Therapists Contractors Family Friends Clergy Hospice Physicians/PA Therapists Contractors … Solution 2: Risk Management •Far too risky to approve 10 residents up front without hard data •Can’t go backwards •Start at a lower amount of residents •Apply conditions •Gather data •Assess at subsequent Type 2 review via 2-year study period Summary •Challenged location requires increased scrutiny •Two -pronged approach can lead to optimal point for all parties •Conditions necessary to ensure neighborhood compatibility •Stage number of residents, assess via data-driven approach •Upholding P&Z approval would set unintended precedent 636 Castle Ridge Court Questions? MIRAMONT MEMORY CARE PRODUCTIONS ERIC SHENK AND XIOMA DIAZ WHO? WHAT? WHY HERE? Xioma Diaz is a physical therapist with 28 years of experience in assisted living and memory care communities. Eric Shenk holds a medical degree. The vision:To own and manage a high-quality residential home to care for older adults with disabilities.Currently and legally serving two residents. This property is already accessible and only requires minor renovations. The home has an internal courtyard for safe exterior amenities. WHAT? The vision:To own and manage a high-quality residential home to care for older adults with disabilities.Currently and legally serving two residents. “Memory Care” –serves people afflicted with Alzheimer’s or other dementias Will be licensed by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Caregivers must have special training There are no other small Memory Care homes in Fort Collins BENEFITS OF RESIDENTIAL CARE Smaller homes resemble their own homes with less people and less chaos residents with dementia are already feeling confused and lost and need a place that feels safe to them larger communities can be very loud and noisy causing increased anxiety in people with dementia Smaller residential homes equate to more one-on-one quality time spent with caregivers As opposed to skilled nursing homes, residential care homes do not provide nursing care as they are not for people who require specialist and/or complex medical care from qualified nurses ERIN ELLIS MONARCH GREENS ASSISTED LIVING •Examples of other residential assisted living homes in high end neighborhoods: •Monarch Greens •Terry Lake •Turnberry Place •“Makes the neighborhood better” despite initial resistance. •Arguments are not new (“Not in my backyard”, “What is this really going to be like?”, “Fear of the unknown”) •In the end, “Our neighborhood . . . is made better by having a residential assisted living home in the neighborhood.” “This is an important resource in our community that’s part of what makes communities better.” HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN Vision:everyone in Fort Collins has healthy, stable housing they can afford. Desired Outcomes: Increase housing supply and affordability Increase housing diversity and choice Improve housing equity Increase accessibility STRATEGIES: Promote inclusivity, housing diversity, and affordability as community values CHANGES MADE TO THE PROPOSAL Occupancy reduced by almost 40%, from 16 to 10. Number of staff per day shift reduced by 33%,from 3 to 2. Off-street parking increased by 100%,from 3 to 6 spaces. Number of windows on the north reduced by 63%, from 4 to 1.5. WHO?Xioma Diaz is a physical therapist with 28 years of experience in assisted living and memory care communities. Eric Shenk holds a medical degree. Uniquely qualified to provide these services Xioma has seen firsthand why a small home with lower caregiver to resident ratio is needed Have been caring for two seniors with disabilities in their home for the past year WHY HERE?This property is already accessible and only requires minor renovations. The home has an internal courtyard for safe exterior amenities. MINIMAL RENOVATIONS PROPOSED Additional northwest facing window Fire sprinkler system Added security monitoring Landscape screening Retaining existing driveway and garage for on-site parking NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING PROPOSED -PREVIOUS PROPOSED –CURRENT VIEW FROM FUTURE WINDOW IN WINTER OPERATION OF THE HOME 2 caregivers during the day; 1 at night Night staff is “awake staff” Groceries and other supplies brought by personal vehicle Normal deliveries Trash –screened and taken out 1x/week Project meets the requirements of the Land Use Code LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USES Single-family detached Minor public facilities Places of worship Group homes Schools Community facilities Childcare centers Adult day/respite centers Solar energy systems Wireless telecommunication facilities THE HAMLET (townhomes)ONE BOARDWALK PLACE (MF) COLLINWOOD ASSISTED LIVING LODGE AT MIRAMONT (MF) TRAFFIC AND PARKING WHAT DOES THE LUC REQUIRE AND THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOW? LAND USE CODE, SECTION 3.2.2(K)(1)(f) Group Homes: For each group home there shall be two (2) parking spaces for every three (3) employees, and in addition, one (1) parking space for each four (4) adult residents, unless residents are prohibited from owning or operating personal automobiles. EXCEEDS LUC MINIMUMS OUR PARKING NEEDS Residents do not drive or own cars 2 staff members during day shifts; 1 at night Staff will park in the garage Groceries brought in by staff in personal vehicles Deliveries –like everyone else Third-party providers (hair cuts, therapy, etc.) serve multiple people at a time Condition of P&Z: Deliveries limited to 8am –6pm, Mon –Sat. We will limit it further to so that therapists, nurse visits, grocery shopping, etc. will be set to 9am –2pm, Mon –Fri (which is outside of school hours and typical work commuting hours). No van •We will ask people to use the app or call ahead. •We will provide training on the app as part of on- boarding process. •We will encourage people to park in the driveway or, if necessary, in front of our house. HOW MUCH PARKING IS ACTUALLY NEEDED? The level of traffic the neighborhood fears doesn’t happen. “Most I see is 4, and they are all spread out.” Francesca Richardson Owner of Multiple Assisted Living Homes (8-10 residents) MONARCH GREENS LIVE TO ASSIST PRESTIGE LIVING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOMES:3 or less cars parked No large dumpsters No cars blocking streets Blend into the surrounding neighborhoods FIRE ACCESS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS “However, the difference (net increase) in traffic, compared to the single family residential unit, will be: 14 more daily trip ends.” 1 more trip end – morning peak 1 more trip end – afternoon peak NEIGHBORS’ WORST-CASE SCENARIO P&Z COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE LAND USE CODE APPROVAL WAS PROPER Applied appropriate standards Acted within its authority FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE SEC. 2.2.8 2.2.8 -Step 8: Standards To approve a development application, the decision maker must first determine and find that the development application has satisfied and followed the applicable requirements of this Article 2 and complies with all of the standards required for the applicable development application (see Step 8: "Standards" referenced in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11), as modified by any modification of standards approved under Section 2.8. FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE SEC. 2.4.2 2.4.2 -Project Development Plan Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11. FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE SEC. 2.5.2 2.5.2 -Final Plan Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A final plan shall comply with the General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4);and a final plan shall be consistent with the project development plan. FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE SEC. 3.5.1 (J) (J)Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for: (1)hours of operation and deliveries; (2)location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3)placement of trash receptacles; (4)location of loading and delivery zones; (5)light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6)placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7)location and number of off-street parking spaces. “It’s really important to reiterate what our goal is and that is to assess compliance with the Land Use Code and that is is the code that has been in existence for some time. And just to be really sure that everyone is clear, small group homes are permitted in low density residential areas.” REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SEC. 2-19 It is the policy of Fort Collins to provide reasonable accommodation for exemptions in the application of its zoning laws to rules, policies, and practices for the siting, development, and use of housing, as well as other related residential services and facilities, to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for making a request for reasonable accommodation to individual persons with disabilities. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCEDURE The decision whether to grant reasonable accommodation rests with city staff,who are well informed about the technical needs of the project,the City Code,and –importantly –the City’s responsibilities for inclusion set forth in state and federal civil rights laws,including the Fair Housing Act. Reasonable accommodation decisions are made by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (LUC Sec.2-19(D))after consideration of specific factors (LUC Sec.2-19(E)).This decision may only be appealed by the applicant and to the City Manager. Appeal of Determination.The applicant may appeal a determination granting or denying a request for reasonable accommodation to the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 2,Article VI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.No other review of a reasonable accommodation determination shall be allowed except as expressly provided within this Section.LUC,Sec.2-19(F). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? The decision of whether the home should house 8 people with disabilities or 10 people with disabilities was not up for decision by the P&Z Commission and is not on appeal here. IN SUMMARY The Project complies with applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Art. 2. Project complies with relevant standards in Art. 3. This home provides 200% more off-street parking than the Land Use Code’s required minimum. The Planning and Zoning Commission may apply conditions, but it’s not required to do so. LUC Sec. 3.5.1(J) (“Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications.”) Project complies with relevant standards in Art. 4.4. Group homes are allowed in this neighborhood. Decision by Planning & Zoning Commission was proper and should be upheld THANK YOU APPEAL OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE CASTLE RIDGE GROUP HOME OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITIES Submitted in Accordance with Code Sec. 2-55(a) (“The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon . . . the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and any other applicable legal authorities.”) 1. Authorities relating to legality of caring for two people in the home: CRS § 25-3-101 (1) It is unlawful for any person, partnership, association, or corporation to open, conduct, or maintain any . . . assisted living residence . . . without first having obtained a license from the department. 6 CCR 1011-1, Chapter 7 2.6 “Assisted living residence” or “ALR” means: (A) A residential facility that makes avai lable to three or more adults not related to the owner of such facility, either directly or indirectly through a resident agreement with the resident, room and board and at least the following services: personal services; protective oversight; social care due to impaired capacity to live independently; and regular supervision that shall be available on a twenty-four-hour basis, but not to the extent that regular twenty-four hour medical or nursing care is required . . . 2. Authorities relating to protection of residents and proponents of housing (applicant) by the Fair Housing Act: 42 U.S.C §3604. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices As made applicable by section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful— (f)(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of— (A) that buyer or renter (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE CASTLE RIDGE GROUP HOME (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of— (A) that buyer or renter (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. (3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes— . . . (B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling . . .