The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOLLINSHAUS PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 6 90 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESw PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 26, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd Walker, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Georgiana Taylor. Board Members present at the March 23, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns and Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 26, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow, 4th Filing - Final Subdivision, #46-89B; Item 3 - Orchard at Clarendon Hills - Final Subdivision, #47-89C; Item 4 - Collinshaus PUD - Preliminary & Final, #6-90; Item 5 - Gateway at harmony Road PUD, 3rd Filing - Amended Preliminary, #1-88E; Item 6 - PZ90-4 Access Easement Vacation, #14-90; Item 7 - Silverplume Estates, 3rd Filing, PUD - Final, #62-89B; Item#8 - PZ90-5 Access Easement Vacation, #15-90; Item 9 - Front Range Baptist Church Annexation and Zoning, #11-90A; Item 10 - Silverplume Estates Rezoning, #62-89C. Staff asked to place item 03, Orchard at Clarendon Hills on the discussion agenda. Member Burns stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item. #2, and would not be voting on it. Chairman Kern pulled item #4, Collinshaus PUD from the consent agenda. Member Klataske moved to approve consent agenda, items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve consent agenda item 2. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0, with Alternate Joe Carroll voting. ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS - Final Subdivision 047-89C Ted Shepard stated that the staff recommended approval of this project with a condition that was not originally included in the board's packet. Mr. Shepard read the condition as follows: "The final utility plans shall demonstrate sufficient casement widths for the conveyance of storm drainage flows so that there is no detrimental alteration to, or encroachment upon the existing bridlepath easements that are on record and platted along the Applewood Estates subdivision. Member Strom moved to approve with the condition stated. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. COLLINSHAUS PUD - Preliminary & Final, 06-90 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report which recommended approval of the proposal. Steven Schreiner representing Collinshaus gave a presentation of the history of Collinshaus. He stated that he had purchased the group home and that the former owners not only ran the group home but lived there as well. He stated that they now have extra bedrooms and would like two more patients to reside there since the owners would not .be living there themselves. He stated this would enable them to keep the existing rates as they are now and not raise them. He stated there would not be any changes to the structure, nor would there be any additional parking needed, so there would not be any outside changes. Chairman Kern stated his concerns stemmed from a couple of issues, the first being that the Group Home Ordinance would allow only 8 residents. He stated this proposed increase represented a 50% increase over the allowable regulations. He stated he felt frustrated because the LDGS allowed them a great deal of flexibility and yet we have a special category called group homes, and which one legally applies in this particular case. He asked if we granted a variance, would we disobey regulations? He was not sure where the law would reside. He stated that he has had discussion with others on the staff that it was not 100% clear for example, that the 1500 foot rule would apply, since this is now a PUD, a Group Home PUD, but nontheless a PUD. He stated he was assured by staff that they would not allow this to happen, but wondered whether or not there would be legal grounds. He stated the second major concern is that he wished to have group homes accepted in neighborhoods, and that they have had difficulty in the past, in parr, because the neighbors have found it quite distressful. He stated a couple of years ago the Board had gone through a process with a great deal of public input where they indicated that the group home regulations as stipulated would be adhered to, so that when group homes were requested, there could be certain guarantees as to their impact and density. If you examined the LDGS, under purpose, the criteria was for social compatibility. He stated if you looked under number 5 in the LDGS All Development Criteria, is a group home part of the comprehensive plan? Would it have social compatibility, if part of it was the density and the creditability that we have had for any programs we initiate. He stated that he thought the proposed density was one that violated our own guidelines, ones that we have adopted, both by the board and by the City. He stated that we have granted a variance to this in the past_ He now regretted voting for that particular item, even though at the time it took a great deal of internal conflict to come to that decision. He stated that he thought they should not create a precedence on this particular item, otherwise we could not offer any guarantees to the public. He stated they were there requesting a 50% increase in density and, he believed was too much. 6Z 0 0 Member Walker stated one of the items was that this was an example of when something does not quite fit, we can slide into a PUD process here to address something and agreed that where the legal ground was and if this was now a PUD, how do they treat it as a group home. He also questioned the implication that there were twelve people living there before. He stated now we would move them out and put in two senior residents and say there was no change. He stated that it significantly alters the nature of the structure so he questioned that supposition, that in sheer numbers, we were not making any difference. He stated that he echoed the chairman's comments, and that it was a sensitive issue and when we were looking at something like this that might be considered a variance, you often times have to find good cause for doing this. There did not seem to be a good cause other than we have a spare bedroom. Let's put two more people in there. He did not feel that it addressed the intent. He stated that if the intent of the group home ordinance were being met by this increase and yet the letter of the law was not being mct, this perhaps would be a reason, but he did not see anything coming out along those lines. Member Shepard stated that contrary to other comments, she was moving for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. She stated that she did not think that the intent of the group home legislation has been violated by this and she thought that this was a worthwhile service to elderly people. The primary concern of the group home ordinance was to protect neighborhoods, and in this case, there was no difference in the impact in the neighborhood and as for as she knew there was no neighborhood opposition to this project. She stated that the intent of the group home ordinance to protect had not been violated in this case, in her opinion. Member Shepard moved for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. Member Burns seconded the motion. Chairman Kern pointed out that there had not been a neighborhood meeting on this issue. The motion for approval was denied 5-2. Mr. Peterson stated that when the board adopted the consent agenda, Resolution 90-5, the fourth paragraph, it stated sixteen feet instead of fourteen and wanted to clarify the note for the public record. Chairman Kern stated that it was understood by the Board. ROHRBACKER PUD - Preliminary & Final, #41-89B Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report which recommended approval with six conditions: 1. An 8' solid wooden screen fence be provided along the site's western perimeter, to screen storage from the view of the Lemay Avenue right-of-way. 2. Gates in the fencing along the East Magnolia Court right-of-way be constructed of the same solid wood materials as the fence. • 3. Stacking of automobiles shall not exceed 8', or be visible from the public right-of-way. -3-