Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOUGLAS MANOR GROUP HOME - SPECIAL REVIEW - 63-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning 4&d Meeting • September 26, 1988 Mi9Wes Page 2 Mr. Peterson stated that the staff requested Item 4, #63-88, Douglas Manor Group Home; Item 10, #66-88,A, Pine Ridge First Annexation and Zoning; and Item 11, #67-88,A, Pine Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning be pulled for discussion. He informed the audience that the Westside Neighborhood Plan would not be heard tonight but will be heard at the October 24 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda, stating that staff requested Item 20, #77-88, Wetlands and Wildlife Maps and Criteria be heard first on the Discussion 'Agenda, followed by: Item 16, #53-85W, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD - Amended Master Plan; Item 17, #53-85T, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Support Services - Preliminary and Final; Item 18, #146-79K, Raintree Commercial PUD - Tract H - Preliminary and Final; and Item 19, #96-81M, The Market at Horsetooth Commons PUD, Lot 5 - Prelimi- nary. Member Kern moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7-0. DOUGLAS MANOR GROUP HOME - #63-88 Linda Ripley gave a description of the proposed use. Douglas Merle, applicant, stated that their goal was to blend in with the neighborhood. There will be no signage or advertising. He quoted from "Practical Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Small Assisted Facili- ties for the Elderly," which states that group homes had no negative impact on property values or the rate of property turnover. He added the exterior of the home would not change dramatically and that the only change proposed was to have the windows, across the garage, be sliding windows in each garage base. Parking for staff will be in the 3-car driveway and they will not park on the street. Member Walker asked Mr. Merle if he was the owner and will he remain as a primary resident. Mr. Merle replied yes, he was the owner and, along with his wife, will con- tinue to reside there. Member Walker asked if there will be a change in the storage of the trailer due to increase of usage of the property. Mr. Merle replied that there were no additional vehicles on the premises. The trailer was in storage. Member Shepard asked if one of the 4 bedrooms would be large enough for a couple to reside in. Mr. Merle replied yes, one room would be 175-180 square feet, and will be used as a double occupancy room. Planning and Zoning Jftrd Meeting is 26, 1988 tes Page 3 Ms. Ripley gave the staff report. It recommended approval with the follow- ing conditions: 1) The maximum number of elderly residents will be five; 2) The maximum number of 2 staff persons will work in the home at any one time; 3) The elderly residents would not be allowed to drive or store auto- mobiles on the property; and 4) there would be no signage for the group home. Ray Benton, 2912 Worthington, stated that the use was not permitted by the covenants of the area. Covenants are important to a neighborhood to keep the quality of the neighborhood as it was when it was developed. Buyers expect it to stay that way. He stated he was disturbed to find that the City was not a party to this argument and that this proposal was in viola- tion of the covenants. He asked if the City considered, in their deliber- ation of.the approval, that the covenants prohibit this kind of use. Paul Eckman stated that this needs to be addressed in court rather than through the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Benton stated that he did some comparisons of elderly housing through- out the city. He stated that the Fort Collins Nursing Home was approxi- mately 70% filled; Columbine West will have 120 beds in the future. Based on these comparisons of existing homes, the majority of them are empty. Therefore, he questioned the need for this group home in an area where the covenants ido not permit that type of use. Ms. Ripley commented that staff did not believe that it was appropriate to ask the applicant to ensure that there was a need for the use. A group home facility offers a different kind of care than the traditional nursing home. The type of patients that Douglas Manor will accept would be ambulatory and will not accept anyone in a wheelchair, mentally or physically handicapped. These residents will be the type that will require some sort of help such as reminding them to take their medicine. Vicki Kloppe, 2930 Worthington, stated that she was concerned about the traffic that this use will create. These residents will need to he driven for various reasons, and this will create more traffic. There were a number of small children living in the area. The traffic in the area of Worthing- ton and Swallow had produced one accident per month. Additional traffic could possibly add more accidents. Parking will be a problem because there would not be enough space between houses, with staff and visitors. She felt that converting the garage and leaving the driveway would be unsightly. Mike Dudek, 2925 Worthington, stated that he had the same concerns as Ms. Kloppe. He stated that the traffic at Drake through Swallow was fast and plentiful. He agreed that there had been several accidents in the area. His biggest concern was alteration of the garage. Mr. Merle had good inten- tions with the group home but the physical change will affect the neighbor- hood. If the group home is unsuccessful, will they change it back? He felt that this would look like an apartment building in a residential area. There were several rentals in the area and rentals create the demand for extra parking. He felt the neighborhood was at the mercy of the group home. Planning and Loning MWrd Meeting • September 26, 1988 tes Page 4 Ms. Ripley stated the elderly would not drive or have automobiles. Trips to the doctor were not significant enough to deny the project. Staff believed that the architectural design of the home would remain compatible with the neighborhood. Adding windows to the garage would not significantly change the appearance of the home. The zoning ordinance does not require a residential home to have a garage. Member Edwards moved to approve Douglas Manor Group Home with the recom- mended staff conditions. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Member Walker understood that requirements, as outlined, dealt with lot size rather than house size. He asked if there was any rule governing inte- rior space that has to be allowed for residents in this situation. Mr. Eckman stated that one criteria to be considered was building coverage of the lot. However, group homes were allowed in the R-L zone after the Board approves them. Member Walker was concerned about regulating quality and asked how this was to be controlled. Ms. Ripley stated that the applicant was required to be licensed by a gov- ernmental agency. They were the ones who regulated the care in the home. They have requirements for square footage of bedrooms. Member Walker asked Mr. Merle if ambulatory residents need special consid- erations. Mr. Merle stated the residents will not be wheelchair bound. Requirements necessary, through the state, for a wheelchair bound person could not be met by their group home. Member Klataske questioned traffic counts for the group home. Ms. Ripley replied that there was no information on this. Earlier she had conversed with an owner of another group home and the owner stated that there were few visitors. Member Groznik stated that he seconded the motion because he was concerned with the type of care given to elderly persons. They should be kept active and have them interact with children. He questioned if the skid marks at the stop signs were from people not knowing it was a new sign recently put in place. As the children grew older and get licenses there could be an increase in traffic and possibly more hazardous drivers. Member Kern stated the intention of the law was to get people out of large nursing homes and into neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood rather see this home with four bedrooms and have 5 elderly people or a family with 3 teenagers? He addressed Mrs. Benton's letter by stating that the two issues of traffic increase and property value decrease have had no negative feed- back. The state has mandated that group homes can go into any zone. Fort Collins has tried to regulate their separation and as to the type of homes. This use will remain a group home for the elderly until it comes before the Board as another proposed use. These homes are inspected by the state Planning and Zoning lWd Meeting September 26, 1988 Mes • Page 5 agency that licenses them. Requirements exist for bedroom floor areas per person. Qualifications for staff were licensed by the state. The state has mandated that the Board not consider this as any kind of rental or commer- cial enterprise. The Board only judges if the land use was appropriate. The Board cannot address enforcement. This would be on a complaint basis. These were private matters and have to be pursued privately. Chairperson O'Dell stated that the Board changed the requirements of group homes last year and she felt confident that this proposal meets all those requirements. Member Kern asked if this controverted having 3 unrelated person in a resi- dence. Mr. Eckman replied that it did not. Member Edwards stated that the same arguments are raised each time a group home is reviewed. He felt the real issue is the threat of change in the use of the residence in the neighborhood. All objections have a flip side. The community should say to do it but in a style to benefit everyone. The safety questions is always raised. Elderly people can add quality, continu- ity and roots to a community as opposed to hot rods and dirt bikes. He felt that a family with 3 or 4 teenagers living in this area could be more dis- ruptive than 4 or 5 elderly residents. There were rentals all around this area. The more statements made about a lot of rentals around just enforces the conformancy of this use. Member Kern amended the motion by changing Condition #1 to 'A group home of elderly residents limited to a maximum of 5.' Member Edwards and Member Groznik accepted this amendment. Motion to approve Douglas Manor Group Home carried 7-0. PINE RIDGE FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #66-88,A PINE RIDGE SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 176-88,A Linda Ripley gave a description of Pine Ridge First and Second Annexations and Zonings stating that this was a voluntary annexation. She added that there had been a number of calls concerned about the R-F zone. Ken Waido gave a description and history of the R-F zone by stating that this property was an open space area. The only development anticipated in the property was the extension of the foothills trail to eventually meet with the Spring Creek trail. This area will not be developed into a park. The residential zoning was applied to properties in the foothills area. Staff recommended this zone because this is the zoning district that is to be applied to properties in this area. There exists no open space zone or governmental zone to apply to city -owned property in the City Code. A zone district is used which applies to the general vicinity in which the parks are located. Covenants are not attached to restrict any development because covenants are agreements between private property owners and the public. The County developed.a Foothills Plan in 1982 and the City developed a plan in 1970. This city -owned open space area should be annexed into the city proper.