Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/03/2000• 0 • Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Carpenter, Torgerson, Craig, Gavaldon, and Colton. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Wray, Fuchs, Schlueter, Wamhoff, and McCallum. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: • 1. Minutes of the October 21 and November 18, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #32-98C Poudre Valley Health Systems, Harmony Campus — Major Amendment 3. #37-99 Larimer County Detention Complex, Sheriff's Administration Building — Special Site Plan Advisory Review 4. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Changes to the Process and Procedures for Amending City Plan and Comprehensive Plan Elements Thereof Discussion Agenda: 5. The Greens at Collindale — Referred Minor Amendment (continued) 6. Harborwalk Estates — Referred Minor Amendment (continued) A citizen pulled item 2 for discussion, Member Craig pulled item 3 for discussion, and staff continued items 5 and 6. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 1 and 4. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Boaru Minutes February 3, 2000 Page 2 of 7 Project: Poudre Valley Health Systems, Harmony Campus - Major Amendment, #32-98C Project Description: Request to add a single story, 12,000 square foot radiation oncology center and a 1,200 square foot medical oncology addition to the South Campus of Poudre Valley Hospital. The site is 25.6 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Harmony Road. The parcel is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: No presentation was requested. Public Comment: The citizen asked that Timberwood Drive be extended as soon as possible. Her development had only one access. She also requested lighting and fencing between the hospital and her neighborhood. Discussion: Bob Blanchard responded that at the time of the original PDP review, Timberwood was planned to go through upon building of the second phase of the Hospital. He said that the fencing and lighting would be addressed during the phases of the project that would be closer to the neighborhood. Member Craig asked how many pieces of the first phase could come in before Timberwood would be put through. Eric Bracke responded that they tried to get Timberwood constructed during the first phase, but the hospital traffic did not impact the intersection. It was the neighborhood that had the most problems. The hospital traffic was accommodated with the current construction of Timberwood and the Snow Mesa exit. The neighborhood had unique problems with only one access. The City couldn't require the hospital to make that connection, because the hospital was not the development that would add the traffic. Member Craig asked what the level of service was at Corbett Drive. • • Planning and Zoning B•d Minutes • February 3, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Eric Bracke responded that it worked at the "A" level of service, but the problem was exaggerated during the school times. Member Colton asked which new developments would impact the intersection. Eric Bracke responded that all of the new developments being processed had sufficient amounts of access, so they would not impact the intersection. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project as recommended. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Larimer County Detention Complex, Sheriff's Administration Building — Special Site Plan Advisory Review, #37-99 Project Description: Request for a location, character and extent review for a 34,500 square foot two-story administration building for the Larimer County Sheriff's Department. The site is 3.68 acres in size and is located at 2401 Midpoint Drive, south of the existing jail and west of Midpoint Drive. The parcel is zoned I — Industrial. Recommendation: Approval with conditions Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ron Fuchs, Current Planning, presented the staff report for the advisory review. He described the unique review and noted the location of the project. The project needed to be in compliance with the City Plan as noted in the state statutes. He described page five of the staff report that listed the conditions. He described the new changes he passed out to update the staff report. Planner Fuchs stated that the recommendations are for the health and safety of the public and the conditions are placed to bring the project into compliance with the Land Use Code. Kevin Gibbs, Project Manager for the county, described the temporary detention pond area. Mr. Gibbs addressed the shifted access point on Midpoint Drive due to underground utilities. Member Craig asked if the Project Manager was involved with the landscape plans for the project. Planning and Zoning Boaru Minutes February 3, 2000 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Gibbs stated that the Sheriff was adamant about not planting shrubs or trees where criminals could hide. The concern that a prisoner could escape from the Center or a vehicle is why the landscape plan was designed as it was. The parking lot in question of adding additional trees is located just to the east of the Detention Center. Member Craig felt that some of the concerns of the Sheriff sounded on the side of paranoia. She felt if she worked in the Sheriff's Office, she would rather have her car under a shade tree than be concerned about a prisoner hiding behind the two-inch tree. Member Craig asked if the county was aware of the City's interest in a painted crosswalk. Mr. Gibbs said he was aware of the reasoning, but he was not in the position to commit the county to the work. Member Torgerson asked Mr. Gibbs to elaborate why they could not place the road over underground utilities. Mr. Gibbs responded that it was the cost to realign the utilities that made for the decision. Member Torgerson asked Planner Fuchs that if regular developers in the community asked to not align roads due to cost would that typically be acceptable. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department, responded that the site sits directly between two other drives, so the City wanted it to align with one of the drives so it was not a safety hazard. Member Torgerson asked if the county staff received plans and comments from the City. Mr. Gibbs stated that the county did receive plans but chose not to respond. Member Craig asked if the county had looked in the Land Use Code in reference to "public improvements within the right-of-way should be designed and constructed in full compliance with the Land Use Code" and she asked how these were not in compliance. Mr. Gibbs could not answer the question. Sheri Wamhoff stated that the parkway was a smaller width than City standards and she asked the county to also bring the sidewalks up to the standard width. Member Craig asked Mr. Gibbs to respond to what Sheri Wamhoff had stated. Planning and Zoning B•d Minutes • February 3, 2000 Page 5 of 7 • Mr. Gibbs could not respond. Member Craig asked Glen Schlueter to address the drainage issues. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department, addressed the temporary detention pond and the concerns the City had, and he felt that they were at the beginning of the review process with time to adjust, but the general philosophy was acceptable to the Stormwater Department. Member Craig wanted to know the traffic analysis for the site of 770 weekday trips, 100 in the AM and 100 in the PM. Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, responded that as he understood it, they were new trips. Member Craig asked when the site would get a "right -in -right -out' intersection. Eric Bracke stated that it would be built soon. Member Craig had the concern that development would happen without the intersection upgrade. She was concerned for public safety. Member Craig asked if there were any • final plans in for the other developments in the area. Sheri Wamhoff responded that Spring Creek Center did have utility plans filed, but was unsure if the development agreement was ready. She also stated that Advanced Energy also had utility plans filed, but did not have a development agreement. She did not feel any of the projects were in a big hurry to build. Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning said that the condition for the `right -in -right - out' was a condition of final approval for the projects, so it had to be built at the time of construction. Member Craig explained her concerns for the area in reference to traffic and safety. Member Gavaldon disagreed with the thought process Member Craig was using. He felt the Detention Center did not have any bearing on the intersection. He felt there were other projects that had the conditions to complete that intersection. He felt there was no power over this project to insist on the intersection. Member Craig responded that she was concerned with the 770 trips created by the office building. She felt it may exacerbate an already dangerous situation, but she realized that there was nothing she could do but reiterate her concern for the problem. Planning and Zoning Boaro Minutes February 3, 2000 Page 6 of 7 Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Craig asked Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, if the Board could continue the project. Paul Eckman responded that the statue provided that the failure of the Board to act within 60 days of the submission shall be deemed as an approval. The county had agreed in writing to extend the time until February 4, 2000. He reviewed the statues of the options the Board had to make. Member Craig moved to disapprove the project on the grounds of danger to the health and safety of the public in reference to the access point issue, the right-of- way being to small, and the drainage situation. Member Craig couldn't disapprove the project on the issue of the trees, but she would rather see some trees in the landscaping. Member Torgerson asked for clarification of what the criteria was to measure the project against. Paul Eckman stated it was against the City Code. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon could not support the motion as it was stated. He felt it was an Advisory Review and the conditions would be addressed. He would rather work in a cooperative effort to fulfill the conditions. Member Torgerson accepted the landscaping discretion of the Sheriff as a safety concern, but he felt there were many other issues left to be addressed. He would have liked to see the government developers be held to the same standards as the private developers. Member Carpenter agreed with the concerns, especially those concerning the access points. Member Colton supported the motion and wanted to send a stronger message that the issues were seen as important to the City. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Gavaldon voting against the motion to disapprove. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • February 3, 2000 Page 7 of 7 Other Business: Paul Eckman passed out a proposed resolution and presented a change to the order of proceedings at public hearing for LDGS projects. He suggested that there be a uniform process. He reviewed the differences between both processes. Member Colton asked if the Board could flex the process from what it was stated as in the Code. Paul Eckman stated that he did not see a way that the Board could be challenged as long as the due process would work equally well for both sides. Member Carpenter moved to approve Resolution PZ-00-7 for repealing the hearing process for LDGS projects and adopting the process as stated in the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. • Member Craig wanted to be sure that the resolution did not lock them into the process as it was stated exactly. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.