Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4406 SENECA ST. GROUP HOME - PDP ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - PDP170024 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (16)HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held September 14, 2017 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 4406 Seneca Street Group Home PDP170024 Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, September 14, 2017 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Cameron Gloss Jennifer Carpenter Clay Frickey Emily Heinz Brad Yatabe William Whitley Cindy Cosmas Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins 2 1 VICE CHAIR JEFF HANSEN: 4406 Seneca Street Group Home…can we have a staff overview? 2 Wait…the City…have we heard any additional information? 3 MS. CINDY COSMAS: Yes we have. We’ve received one email in favor of this development, 4 and two emails with concerns about the zoning use of this parcel and whether it is consistent with the 5 neighborhood. 6 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you. Now, Clay, we’re ready for your presentation now. 7 MR. CLAY FRICKEY: Yes, thanks Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. 8 My name is Clay Frickey, the staff planner for the 4406 Seneca Street Group Home. So just to provide a 9 brief overview of the project…the proposal is to convert an existing single-family, detached home, at 10 4406 Seneca Street, to a group home for the elderly. The applicant is seeking to have eight residents as 11 part of this application. The site is located in the low-density residential zone district, the RL zone district 12 for short. And the applicant is seeking one modification as part of this project, and that is to 13 get…increase the number of residents. With the lot size of this lot, the maximum number of residents 14 they’d normally be allowed to have is five; they’re looking to get eight, which is above and beyond the 15 maximum in the zoning. And with that, I will turn it over to the applicant for their presentation. 16 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Clay. 17 MR. GREG BAUSTERT: Do I need to sign in? Thank you; my name is Greg Baustert and I’m 18 the person who’s starting this group home. The house is on a smaller lot, but it’s a 5,400-square foot 19 house, so it’s very large and plenty of room for the eight residents. We are not changing anything of the 20 outside of the house; all we’re doing is interior modifications. The house has been the same…as big as 21 it’s been, since 1988 when it was built, so we’re not changing anything with the neighborhood. 22 We’ll have six residents upstairs and two residents downstairs…and I guess there was a concern 23 about the downstairs. We will not have any residents who have any mobility issues downstairs. We 24 already have a chair lift that’s already in there, and then we’ll be building window wells, egress, walk-out 25 window wells for the basement rooms, so that there’s a very easy way for emergency egress from there. 26 The house is set up perfectly for this type of…this type of use. The previous owner was wanting to do 27 that herself, but she was having to…she had to move because she’s going out of the country. So, I’m 28 happy to answer any questions. 29 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you. We’ll move on to citizen input I guess. Or, do we 30 have any clarifying questions? 31 MR. FRICKEY: Actually, staff presentation…if you wanted to talk… 32 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Right, response to his… 33 MR. FRICKEY: So, just wanted to speak a little bit more specifically about the modification in 34 particular since they are looking for a modification as part of this proposal. So, this slide just shows the 35 table that indicates how many square feet you need in a lot in the low-density residential zone district in 36 order to get eight residents. So, the minimum lot size in the low-density residential zone district is 6,000 37 square feet, which means that you would need at least a 13,500-square foot lot to get eight residents. So, 38 you basically take…minimum, you take five additional residents above the three…basically the three that 3 1 you can get with the minimum lot size, multiply that by 1,500, you get 13,500. The lot at 4406 Seneca 2 Street is 10,468 square feet, which means the maximum number of residents you could get would be five 3 by…which is allowed by zoning. 4 So, what staff did is we took a look to see, alright, where did this standard come from…I mean, 5 when was it originated, what was the purpose behind the standard in the first place? And it looks like this 6 group home regulation took effect in 1987, and staff could not find any sort of agenda item summary 7 from a Council meeting or any other sort of purpose statement. So, staff had to sort of take their best 8 guess as to what the purpose of the standard is, and it’s most likely to provide ample space for all of the 9 residents within the group home. And so, when taking a look at this proposal, you have two things at play 10 here. One, you have a large home that’s 5,300 square feet per the site plan submitted by the applicant, 11 which is on a lot which is, you know, relatively small for a house of that size. So, what staff did was took 12 a look at, well, how many square feet would you have per resident? And so, this calculation actually 13 includes the two resident caretakers that would be on site 24/7. And so, for each one of the residents, 14 which would be a total of ten, if they’re looking for eight, would have 530 square feet per occupant. 15 Now, compared to extra occupancy rental houses which have a similar metric for determining how many 16 residents you may have depending on the size of the house, you need at least 350 square feet for an extra 17 occupancy rental house. And so, by this metric, each occupant would have a lot more square footage than 18 what you could, potentially, in another scenario. 19 The other thing to consider is that, perhaps, the lot size is getting at open space…so making sure 20 that there’s ample open space for all of the residents. And the home at 4406 Seneca Street is across the 21 street from Webber Middle School and Johnson Elementary School, and also a park. And so there is 22 ample open space nearby as well. Along with that, none of the residents will be allowed to own cars, per 23 the applicants’ submittal either. And so, from an impact perspective, there won’t be a lot of cars 24 associated with the residents, which minimizes the impact on neighbors. And so, based on all of those 25 factors, staff finds that the proposal is equal to or better than a compliant plan and supports the 26 modification request. 27 And, beyond that, the proposal satisfies all of the other…all of the other requirements in Article II 28 and Article III…which, most of the Article III standards deal with landscaping and parking. And then 29 this proposal also complies with Article IV with respect to building design and setbacks. They’re not 30 modifying the exterior of the building, so that’s not changing. And so, based on all of those aspects of the 31 plan, staff recommends approval of 4406 Seneca Street Group Home, PDP170024. 32 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Clay. Any questions from the Board? 33 BOARDMEMBER RUTH ROLLINS: Are there…how many parking spaces are there at the 34 house? 35 MR. FRICKEY: The site plan shows three. 36 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Three. 37 MR. FRICKEY: They could fit a fourth, but what that would do…so, the driveway is…it’s an 38 eyebrow, so it has sort of two curb cuts on Seneca. So, what that does is…the three includes two spaces 39 in front of the garage, and then one space in the eyebrow, which means all three could get out. You could 4 1 fit a fourth car, but that would mean that one of the cars couldn’t get out. And so we can’t count that 2 additional space. 3 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And, folks at…and how many caregivers will you have? Two 4 caregivers? 5 MR. FRICKEY: We should probably ask…that’d be for the applicant. 6 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. 7 MR. BAUSTERT: Two during the day. 8 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. And then, will the individuals staying at the house…I 9 understand they won’t have a car…but will they have…I mean, people might come and see them? Is 10 that…visitors? Will they have visitors? 11 MR. FRICKEY: This wouldn’t preclude visitors from coming, but it’s sort of outside the purview 12 of the parking requirement. The parking requirement deals with the number of employees on site. And 13 so, from that perspective, the proposal meets the parking requirement. 14 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 15 BOARDMEMBER MICHAEL HOBBS: Sir, what’s the expectation, or the basic situation, with 16 caregivers coming in during the day to help these people? Physical therapists, nurses…is that an 17 everyday occurrence? A steady flow? Is it a couple times a week? Can you enlighten us on that please, 18 on the amount of professional visits? 19 MR. BAUSTERT: The primary caregivers, the Monday through Friday…will actually live in the 20 house. And then, during the weekends, they will have caretakers that will come in during the weekend to 21 take care of the residents. There may be outside agencies who come in, but it’s…there’s no way of 22 telling, you know, how often that will be happening. Because that would be usually outside agencies. 23 And then…it’s not going to be, like, a steady flow of just people coming and going. 24 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, thank you. 25 MR. FRICKEY: And, actually, if I may, actually add a little bit. So, on the other side of Seneca 26 Street, again, are the two schools. So, there’s not a curb cut or a driveway for hundreds and hundreds of 27 feet. I don’t know the exact dimensions. But on-street parking is allowed on Seneca Street, and so there 28 is a lot of on-street parking compared to a lot of other neighborhoods because they’re opposite green 29 space. 30 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Clay, how many on-street parking places are directly in front of 31 this, from the curb cut to curb cut on the eyebrow? 32 MR. FRICKEY: I’m not sure; I’d have to take a closer look. 33 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And, Clay, can I ask you…so what are the parking requirements 34 for an institution of this nature? Like, how do you guys determine that? I didn’t see anything in our… 5 1 MR. FRICKEY: So, page 7 of the staff report has the off-street parking identified on it. And so, 2 it’s two parking spaces for every three employees, and one parking space for every four adults. So, 3 there’s two caregivers that will be on-site, so those are the employees, so they meet the parking 4 requirement for that. And none of the residents will be allowed to own cars, so therefore, they don’t have 5 to have the additional parking spaces for the residents. And so, they’re in compliance with the parking 6 requirements. 7 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Because the Code states that it’s one per every four individuals? 8 MR. FRICKEY: No, but also too that if they’re not allowed to own cars, you don’t have to 9 provide parking for them. That’s also in the Land Use Code standard. And so, since none of the residents 10 will be allowed to own cars, the only parking requirement is for the employees. And so, you need at least 11 two parking spaces for every three employees. The site plan shows three parking spaces and there’s two 12 employees. And so, therefore, they’re in compliance with that section of the Land Use Code. 13 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 14 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Do we have any other questions from the Board? No? I would like to 15 open it up for comments from citizens. How many people do you think we have that would like to speak 16 on this item? Okay, you’ll have three minutes each. Like I said earlier, to help us move as fast as 17 possible, line up at each podium, sign in, and then state your name and address before you speak. We 18 have two microphones that we can…if we can have a line at each one, it’ll move things along a lot faster. 19 MR. OLIVER MUELLER: Okay, should I start now? My name is Oliver Mueller; I live at 4400 20 Craig Drive, which is a few houses down from the proposed development. I also am speaking for a 21 couple of my neighbors who couldn’t be here, Diane, Nancy, and Jen, which are three neighbors…two of 22 which are directly next to the proposed house. 23 And, so some of our concerns are the limit of residents, first of all. I know it’s eight residents, but 24 it’s actually going to be ten total, really, when you add in the two caregivers. So, you’re talking about ten 25 people in a house that’s not designed for that. The second big issue is the conversion of the garage. I 26 know that wasn’t mentioned, but they want to convert the garage into two bedrooms. And we have 27 covenants for the neighborhood that they are not allowed to convert the garage. We must have a garage 28 that has at least…that is at least two cars but no larger than three car garage, and that’s in our covenants. 29 And I know we…talked about parking some. It…they’re correct in the fact that, if only two 30 people have cars, then, yeah, they have enough room. But, A, they won’t have a garage for the other 31 residents’ cars, so they’ll be parking on the driveway, which limits the number of guest parking that 32 they’ll have. So the additional guests that come on the weekends for eight residents and caregivers, and 33 so forth, are going to more than exceed the number of parking spaces on that street. There’s probably 34 maybe four, maybe max five, you can fit until you get to the end of the road. And then you have 35 neighbors that you’re next to on the other side. So, obviously you can park in front of the neighbors’ 36 house as well, but across from there is a school, and…I’m not sure if you can park on that side of the 37 road, but again, another issue with that would be the…on Monday through Friday, the school gets very 38 busy with traffic from people dropping off their children. And if you need any type of medical or 39 emergency services, it’s going to be very…also hard to get in there, because, again, the school has…you 40 have school Monday through Friday for nine months out of the year. 6 1 Let’s see…and I think that may be all that I have that I can remember right now. So, the main 2 issue I think is also that everyone has is with the garage. I think there would be more approval for the 3 project if it was simply not converting the garage, because once you convert that, you can never go back. 4 Once you convert a garage, you have a converted garage. And then, if that business goes out of business, 5 then…I’m not sure what else is going to go there, or what’s going to take it over, but it could be 6 something even less desirable. So, that’s really the concern. So, if they could simply reduce and limit to 7 five residents without converting the garage, there would be a lot more people in favor of it. So, I will 8 end it there with my four seconds left. Thank you. 9 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Go ahead. 10 MS. AMY RAASCH: Hi, my name is Amy Raasch and I am the daughter of the folks that live 11 next door to the home, so they back up and share a fence with them. Unfortunately, my parents are out of 12 town so they couldn’t come, so I do have a letter from them that I’m going to read. And I also have some 13 supporting photos if you’d like to see those. I don’t know if we’re allowed to do that. So, here it goes. 14 We live right next door to the proposed group home and have lived there for 27 years. We feel 15 that this proposal to have a group home that exceeds the Land Use Code by 60% is unwarranted and a 16 major safety concern. Special consideration should be given to the fact that this property is immediately 17 across from Webber Middle School, not immediately across from Johnson or a park. The following are 18 our major concerns: number one, the covenants of the neighborhood require a single-family dwelling with 19 a two- to three-car garage. We understand you all don’t uphold the covenants, but, the plan to convert the 20 garage to bedrooms is a major violation of the covenants and legal action could be taken to enforce them. 21 Number two, once the garage is converted to bedrooms, it is highly unlikely the home will ever 22 be anything again. Like Oliver said, should this business close, some other organization could come in, 23 whether that be a halfway house or something else that could be concerning to the children across the 24 street. 25 Number three, certainly we are concerned about the negative effect this will have on our home 26 values in the neighborhood, especially if the group home does not have a garage. 27 Number four, the on-site parking plans for the home will block the circular driveway so the 28 vehicles cannot pull forward on to Seneca Street and have full view of any school children who might be 29 present. The circular driveways were designed for those homes intentionally for the neighborhood and 30 the school across the street. 31 Five, with eight residents times all the friends and family visiting along with various support 32 staff, traffic and parking requirements increase. Not to mention the risk of emergency medical staff 33 needed. Again, safety concerns for the school-based community. 34 And then, finally, if this must be a group home, the more reasonable path forward would be to 35 have a group home with five residents without converting the garage to bedrooms. It does not violate the 36 covenants, abides by the Land Use Code, reduces the school traffic and parking concerns, has less impact 37 on the homes’ values, does not lock the home into being a group home forever, and, most importantly, 38 respects the community. In addition to the well-being of the residents in the home, the intent of the lot 39 size Land Use Code is not only to protect those residents, but also for the surrounding neighbors. That is 40 why this code is based on lot size, not living space. And, as Clay told us, this law has been in place for 7 1 over 40 years because it has provided the city with appropriate guidance to protect both residents and the 2 neighbors. 3 So, we do not understand why this party feels that they are above the law and can violate the 4 property’s covenants and Land Use Codes. Allowing to do this could harm potential residents and will be 5 putting the school’s children at risk and enable an investor to profit from this business. 6 Am I allowed to ask any questions of the owner? 7 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: In your comments, you could have…give us questions and we’ll have 8 those answered later. 9 MS. RAASCH: Okay, so my first… 10 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Are you…you’re out of time, so are you about done? 11 MS. RAASCH: I’m done…yeah, I’m all done. So, my photos are here; I don’t know how you 12 want them. But, they’re basically…it’s school traffic. 13 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah, you can give them to Cindy, or to Clay. 14 MS. RAASCH: So, one of them is school traffic and another one is snow storms, because Seneca 15 is a major route for snow plows, so you can see all the snow that piles up multiple times every winter. 16 And then, questions, do you want those? 17 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Be very brief. 18 MS. RAASCH: Yeah. First, just curious how much rent is going to be for each resident if this 19 home is considered residential use? And I don’t know much about, like, rental caps and what not, but 20 consider that versus a single-family home. You know, that’s insane, that income. And then finally, 21 why…why eight versus five? That’s my other question. 22 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. 23 MS. RAASCH: Thank you. 24 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Sir? 25 MR. STEVE GOTTSCHALK: Good evening. I’m Steve Gottschalk; I live at 4505 Hilburn 26 Court, and it’s about a block and a half south of this residence. I’ve lived there since 1991, and I 27 also…my covenants date back to 1987 as well. So, I’ll try to give…let’s see what we can do to copy off 28 this here. As far as the number of residents that Amy just covered…does the square footage, Clay, does 29 that 13,500 square feet…does that calculation include the conversion of the garages already? Yes or no? 30 MR. FRICKEY: I’ll respond after you’re done with your comments. 31 MR. GOTTSCHALK: Okay, thank you. Listen, also, parking. Well, they’ve covered parking 32 pretty well. The other thing that I don’t think was covered in parking is, we do share the streets and the 33 parking with the schools. The schools have an event, we have parking four blocks away already. And so, 8 1 if they have an event that coincides with an emergency at this house, we’re going to have an issue. 2 Somebody’s either going to get hurt, or one of the residents won’t get the care timely enough to possibly 3 save their lives or address the issue. So, that’s one concern. 4 Traffic…traffic is picking up in that part of town, and if we’re going to have all these people 5 coming to provide services, and the needs of the people that will be living in there, forgetting the fact that 6 the parking is something that their families will take advantage of, how’s that going to work if you have 7 two or three different people coming to provide services at the same time? 8 And then also…let’s see here…concerns on the covenants I think have been covered pretty well. 9 The two-car garage is a pretty hard written covenant, and it’s not something that can be changed easily. 10 So, I would like to know what’s been done to change those covenants. And then, we also had some 11 concerns at the first meeting about the property values of these homes that are surrounding. Clay said that 12 with several homes…I think he said twelve or thirteen…maybe it was ten…but quite a few of homes like 13 this in residential neighborhoods in Fort Collins. We have no empirical data provided to us from how 14 much the homes were worth before these properties went in versus how much they’re worth a couple 15 years later. We’d like to know what our properties are going to do as this home ramps up and starts to go. 16 We do have a right to that data I believe. 17 And then, in the first meeting, he said this is…this is step one…we have twelve steps to the 18 process. We’re at step one or one and a half. And this is step twelve? Is this step twelve? 19 Okay…because we’re concerned that we’re going to walk out of here tonight and you guys are going to 20 make a decision, and we haven’t even seen any of the…he referenced a document on page 27 of the plan 21 code document. We haven’t seen that. We don’t know what that looks like, and I think we should. I 22 have other questions, but I’m out of time and I’ll respect the time given to me. Okay, thank you very 23 much. 24 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak? No, seeing 25 none, I’ll close the citizen participation part of this item. Do we have any responses from staff or the 26 applicant? 27 MR. FRICKEY: Sure, so to start, a couple of comments. So, the City doesn’t have any record of 28 the covenants…it doesn’t enforce covenants, that’s a private agreement. So, the City is not a party to 29 those and can’t enforce the covenants. Beyond that, to talk about property values…it’s not a criteria [sic] 30 in the Land Use Code. And Steve is correct, we don’t have any sort of data to see when these group 31 homes were put into place and what happened to property values. Beyond that, it’s not a criteria [sic] in 32 the Land Use Code for evaluating any of these sorts of land use issues. And so, that wasn’t covered in the 33 staff report. 34 To talk about the 13,500 square foot, what does that include…so the 13,500 square foot 35 calculation is the minimum lot size you would need to get eight residents. And that’s based off the 36 minimum lot size and the amount of lot area that you need per additional resident above three. And so, 37 the minimum lot size in the RL zone district is 6,000 square feet. To get five more residents, you need 38 1,500 square feet per additional resident, so five times 1,500 is 7,500 square feet, and so that gets you 39 13,500 square feet. So that’s what that number is in reference to. 40 And then to talk about parking, and this also sort of addresses, I think, Boardmember Rollins’ 41 question earlier about on-street parking and how many spaces are there directly in front of the house. 9 1 With the curb cuts, it looks like there’s one space immediately in front of the house on…and then, across 2 the street, is just…it’s open parking that’s right next to Webber Middle School. And I think that…that 3 sums up staff’s responses to citizen comment. 4 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Clay. Does the applicant have any other information to 5 add? 6 MR. BAUSTERT: Sure…and the…sadly, there’s not that many visitors to these homes. It’s not 7 like that the…the resident’s family is lining up to come visit. So, there’s not going to be, you know, a 8 traffic jam of people trying to come to visit the residents, sadly enough. And as far as the covenants, I’m 9 not violating the covenants, and that’s according to the Colorado Supreme Court…let’s see…Evergreen 10 versus…I can’t remember what the court case is, but I’m not violating the covenants, so… 11 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Time for citizen participation has already passed. Mam, 12 mam, I have a list of the questions…we’re going to try to address them. 13 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: So, there was a comment about a document missing in page 27 of the 14 report? 15 MR. FRICKEY: I’m not entirely sure what that’s in reference to. To be clear, all of the 16 documents are available on-line and have been posted for two weeks. Also, every submittal document 17 that comes in through the City of Fort Collins is also on City Docs and is public record and has been on- 18 line since submitted to the City. And so, the documents have been available on-line for months. 19 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, there were a couple questions about the potential of this 20 changing ownership or changing uses in the future. 21 MR. FRICKEY: Yeah, thank you for reminding me. So, if it were to change use from this variety 22 of group home which is targeted toward the elderly, to say something that was more of like a halfway 23 house or for victims of domestic violence, or anything other than a group home for the elderly, it would 24 have to go back through the development review process, which means there would be another 25 neighborhood meeting, there would be another public hearing just like this one, and it would have to go 26 through the approval process all over again. 27 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Clay, if it was sold as a house…if it just was sold after it’s a 28 group home, and just became a residence again, is there any tools we have to require that the garage be 29 put back? 30 MR. FRICKEY: I don’t believe so. 31 MR. CAMERON GLOSS: No, there’s not. We don’t have any Code requirements to that effect. 32 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: I have a question here…thanks Cameron…wondering what the rent 33 might be? What rates you might be offering? 34 MR. BAUSTERT: Is that relevant to this…? 10 1 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Maybe not necessarily, but I’d like to have them feel like their concerns 2 have been addressed. And at the…also ask why you’d like eight residents, why you feel there’s a need 3 for that. 4 MR. BAUSTERT: That’s what the State of Colorado allows for this type of assisted living 5 residence. And the State of Colorado will be the regulatory agency overseeing us. The average monthly 6 for an assisted living residence in Fort Collins is about $4,500…is how much an average is. 7 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. 8 (Secretary’s Note: There was inaudible communication at this point in the meeting.) 9 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Sir, what exact document were you saying was missing? 10 MR. BRAD YATABE: Mr. Chair, if we could have him step up to the mic please? 11 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah… 12 MR. GOTTSCHALK: Mr. Frickey referenced the document; it was on page 27 he said, in regards 13 to a parking question from one of you up here…about what is the parking, and he referenced page 27 on a 14 planning and zoning document that none of us have seen, and we’re not aware of where those documents 15 are. It wasn’t brought up in the first meeting. 16 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you sir. 17 MR. GOTTSCHALK: And are the garages included in the 10,000 square feet? 18 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: It was page 7. 19 MR. FRICKEY: Yeah, it was page 7 to clarify, sorry. And, on the letter for the hearing, there’s a 20 link to the documents on-line for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. And then to talk about the 21 10,000 square feet…is the garage included in the square footage of the house? Is that the question? I just 22 want to make sure I’m answering your question. 23 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah, that was his question. 24 MR. FRICKEY: I believe that was included in the 5,300 square feet, yes. 25 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, and the last question that I noted that hasn’t been addressed yet 26 is where at in this whole process that the project’s at? 27 MR. FRICKEY: So, I believe Steve was referencing the Development Review Guide, which lays 28 out the development review process steps one through twelve. I think this is step four or five, because 29 after this, the applicant still has to file for final plans and then there’s also, too, the building permit 30 process and the development construction permit process for building any infrastructure if it’s needed. 31 And so, it’s still toward the middle of the development review process per that guide. 32 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you Clay. Any other questions from the Board? 11 1 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Clay, this is either for you or for the applicant…so, are the two 2 caregivers required, if you have eight individuals in the home, and if there’s…how many individuals…or 3 how many caregivers…if one caregiver is provided, what’s your max number of people that you can have 4 in the home? 5 MR. FRICKEY: So, there’s not a Land Use Code requirement as far as I’m aware of… 6 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: No, I mean for the State…is this a State requirement? Yeah, 7 that’s my question. 8 MR. FRICKEY: I’ll let the applicant take care of that one. 9 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. 10 MR. BAUSTERT: Is it a State requirement for number of caregivers? No…actually the State of 11 Colorado, you design your policies and procedures and you have to go by your policies and procedures. 12 But I will have a higher caregiver ratio than most places, yeah. 13 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Any other questions from the Board for the applicant and 14 for staff? 15 BOARDMEMBER EMILY HEINZ: Yeah, I have a couple. Clay, are there outdoor requirements 16 on the space for each resident? When I look at the aerial, it doesn’t look like…you know, it looks like the 17 majority of the lot, aside from the front yard, is taken up by house. So, is there outdoor requirement per 18 resident? 19 MR. FRICKEY: So, the standard in the Land Use Code says number of lot area per resident, so 20 it’s a lot area standard, not a building area standard. 21 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: What is that standard? Is that the one that’s on page 7? 22 MR. FRICKEY: Well, let me find it in the staff report real quick. 23 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I can find it if you just… 24 MR. FRICKEY: It’s on page 6…and that’s…page 6 deals with the modification request. 25 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: So, the modification, to be clear, because I thought it was just for the 26 interior square footage, but you’re saying the overall? 27 MR. FRICKEY: It’s for lot size. 28 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: It’s for lot size; that’s the problem…that’s the whole problem. Got 29 it. Okay…because the lady who got up and spoke said that there’s a 70%...that they’re requesting a 30 70%...60% variance, but this is really only a 30%, right? 31 MR. FRICKEY: Well, three goes into five…that’s 60%, so yes, that math is accurate. 32 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay, thanks. 12 1 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Clay, so, just to be sure that we’re all on the same page…the lot 2 size and house size that this is would support only five residents it says in your report, correct? 3 MR. FRICKEY: Correct. 4 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: And, is that five residents total or five residents and one or two 5 caregivers? 6 MR. FRICKEY: Five residents…so it doesn’t include caregivers, it just includes the number of 7 elderly folks that would be living there. 8 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: So… 9 MR. FRICKEY: So, caregivers are independent of that calculation. 10 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, so the applicant is asking to increase from five to eight? 11 MR. FRICKEY: Correct. 12 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Thank you. 13 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, if I can comment…I know that there was some testimony as to the 14 amount of rent. I just want to emphasize that that is not a consideration for the Board to make. In fact, 15 there…apart from affordable housing cases that come before you, that really is not a consideration. So, 16 I’d ask you to disregard that in terms of your consideration. 17 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Brad. Do I have any other questions or are we ready to start 18 deliberating? 19 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I have…I’m sorry. 20 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I have another too. 21 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I have a question for Mr. Baustert. Sir, do you own and operate 22 other facilities like this in Fort Collins or elsewhere? 23 MR. BAUSTERT: No, this will be my first. 24 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Emily, you had a question? 25 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Do we, Clay…would the Building Department have requirements 26 for the garage if it is converted for more access to outdoor space, or just bigger windows, or anything that 27 they would have…I mean, are there requirements in the Building Code for garage conversion? 28 MR. FRICKEY: I’m not sure; I don’t know the Building Code that well, sorry. 29 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay, and we wouldn’t have any say over what they do with that 30 space or what it’s finished like at all? 13 1 MR. FRICKEY: It would have to meet the Building Code, but yeah, their review comes after… 2 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: After this one. 3 MR. FRICKEY: After this stage, that’s correct. 4 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Got it. 5 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Anything else the Board would like answers to? Any comments of 6 deliberation or…? Okay, you have a question? 7 BOARDMEMBER WILLIAM WHITLEY: I’d like to know, from the standpoint of your 8 development, what qualifies you to develop this property? That sounds kind of rude, but I’m curious to 9 know what you’ve done before? 10 MR. BAUSTERT: I’ve had my own business for 11 years and I am passionate about this. My 11 father-in-law lives with us right now. My mother-in-law was living with us until she had to go into a 12 memory care facility, and it’s…I mean this is…when I retire, when I need help, this is where I want to 13 end up, my own facility. It’s something that’s needed and it’s…it’s helping people. So, it’s what I want 14 to do. 15 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, thank you. 16 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Are we ready to? Yeah, are we through with questions? You have 17 comments or…? I have one I’d like to start with, kind of addressing the concerns over the covenants. 18 There’s multiple layers of regulations that any project has to go through. We’re dealing with kind of a 19 base layer that has to do with the Land Use Code, and the Land Use Code only. As the project moves 20 forward, if there are concerns with the Building Code or with the covenants in the subdivision or the 21 homeowner’s association, those are dealt with at a different level than this forum right here. 22 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: Okay, I guess…we’re talking about the Land Use 23 Code, that’s kind of where I’m going. One of the standards that we have to meet is that this modification 24 would promote the general purpose of the Code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. I 25 can’t get there; I just can’t get to that this is equal to or better than. It…we obviously have the standards 26 for a reason, and I think that it’s also not nominal and inconsequential. I think it’s a pretty big jump from 27 five to eight…and there’s parking and a lot of other things, but when I come right down to it, the one that 28 I can’t get over is the piece that it promotes the general purpose of the Code standard equal to or better 29 than would a compliant plan, so I can’t support the modification because of that. 30 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yeah, I agree with Jennifer. I won’t be supporting this either 31 based on the fact that I don’t think the modification is…meets the Code…or is inconsequential. 32 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Yeah, I agree. I think that the variation with lot size seems more 33 nominal, but when I think about the interior square footage and the people living there, I think that it is 34 pretty significant, and I don’t think it’s nominal and inconsequential or equal to or better than, so I won’t 35 be supporting it either. 14 1 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I share those views. I believe that it’s…seems to me that the 2 applicant is asking to do some things that, as we’ve heard tonight, could possibly or probably be 3 detrimental to the public good, and that it would affect the neighborhood in a consequential way. So, I 4 won’t be supporting the motion either…or, I won’t be supporting the modification. 5 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I find myself conflicted by this because there’s a need for this 6 sort of facility, but I also share my colleagues’ views that it doesn’t support the public good, and I will be 7 against it as well. 8 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: This is a tough one, I agree. We keep talking about the modification 9 being nominal and inconsequential…that’s one of four potential arguments we could use. One of them, 10 which I think is an important one to consider, is that it fulfills a public need for care for elderly people. 11 There’s another…you know…requirement outside of that, that it can’t be detrimental to the public good. 12 In spite of my other Boardmembers saying…I’m not convinced that it would be detrimental to the public 13 good. I think that the neighborhood would not really see much of an impact from there being eight 14 residents in this home as opposed to five. And it may not have been stated in the…in the justification for 15 the modification, but I think it does fulfill a need of the community. 16 Any other comments or are we ready for a motion? 17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m ready for a motion. 18 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Jennifer, could I just get a clarification from our attorney? So, 19 Brad, will we be moving on the modification and then the PDP separately on this? 20 MR. YATABE: That’s correct. 21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I move the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification 22 at 4406 Seneca Street for the group home to increase the number of residents to eight from five based on, 23 I do not feel that it…that the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the Code standard equal 24 to or better than would a compliant plan. 25 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I second. 26 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Cindy, can we have a roll call? 27 MS. COSMAS: Carpenter? 28 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 29 MS. COSMAS: Heinz? 30 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Yes. 31 MS. COSMAS: Hobbs? 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes. 33 MS. COSMAS: Rollins? 15 1 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes. 2 MS. COSMAS: Whitley? 3 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Yes. 4 MS. COSMAS: Hansen? 5 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: No. Okay, do we have any…do we need to vote separately on the 6 general application, or is it…? 7 MR. YATABE: Yes, because the modification is just to increase the number of possible 8 residents. If approved, I believe that the existing limit would be five residents, so that’s what you’re 9 voting on. 10 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you. Do we have any comments on the project in general? 11 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes, I would comment that I would support the proposal, and I will 12 support the proposal without the modification for the…allowable within the Land Use Code amount of 13 five residents. 14 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I would be supporting that as well. 15 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes, I’ll be supporting it. I’m not concerned about parking or 16 traffic. My son went to Webber and I understand the traffic right around that area, and I think that these 17 group homes spread throughout the city all over the place, that’s…that’s what we’re trying to support. 18 And, you know, I don’t think that there’s going to be any issues with emergency vehicles and, you know, 19 some of the concerns that the neighborhood raised. I don’t believe that those will come to fruition, so I’ll 20 be supporting it without the modification. 21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I will support it as well with the five and without the 22 conversion of the garage, and that’s something that I think under your covenants you probably need to 23 look someplace else. I don’t think the City really…we don’t…the City doesn’t deal with covenants, 24 that’s something that you would have to do with the neighborhood. But, I think the…there’s a need for 25 this, and I think the intensity of it at five is something that can work in a neighborhood. At eight, I 26 questioned it, but I will support it. 27 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I agree; I’ll be supporting it. I think it meets a good need, and I 28 think that this is the right size for it, so I’ll be supporting as well. 29 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Do you have something to add? 30 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yeah, I’d like a clarification as to whether or not the PDP without 31 the modification has any requirement for or against modifying the garage? Are we…is that attached to 32 the…anything in the modification alone, or is it not really part of this Land Use Code issue? 33 MR. FRICKEY: So, it’s not really part of a Land Use Code issue. If they were relying on the 34 garage spaces for parking, then that would be an issue. But, since they have enough driveway space to 35 meet the parking requirements, then the garage space is a moot point from a Land Use Code perspective. 16 1 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Thank you Clay. 2 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, do we have a motion? 3 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Mr. Chair, I would move that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning 4 Board approve the 4406 Seneca Street Group Home PDP170024, and this approval is based upon the 5 agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the worksession and this hearing, and 6 the Board discussion and the public comment on this item that we’ve heard this evening. 7 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you, do I have a second? 8 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I’ll second. 9 MR. YATABE: If I can just add to that, I think you do want to exclude…so, the entire staff report 10 actually includes the findings for the modification. I think you just want to exclude the staff findings and 11 recommendation as it relates to the modification itself. 12 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Do you want to amend that motion? 13 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes, thank you Brad. I would like to amend that motion to say that 14 it’s based on the materials presented by the staff with the exception of the staff recommendation to 15 approve the modification and those materials. 16 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Emily, do you accept that amendment? 17 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I still second. 18 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thanks. Cindy, I think we’re ready for roll call. 19 MS. COSMAS: Hobbs? 20 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes. 21 MS. COSMAS: Rollins? 22 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes. 23 MS. COSMAS: Whitley? 24 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Yes. 25 MS. COSMAS: Carpenter? 26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 27 MS. COSMAS: Heinz? 28 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Yes. 29 MS. COSMAS: Hansen? 17 1 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yes. That closes item number five on our agenda.