Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/18/2007Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Wetzler Excused Absences: Campana, Stockover Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, Jackson, Leavitt, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note — staff has requested Item # 2, 220 E. Olive Street -Modification of Standards # 27-07 be pulled and an additional condition added (it will be read into the record later.) There were two errors on Item # 3, the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins --the adoption dates for the Timnath Comprehensive Plan was June 2007 and the Loveland Comprehensive Plan was 2005. Item # 4, East Skyway Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment was continued from the September 20" meeting. Item # 6, 1225 Redwood Street Minor Amendment would normally be an administrative review by staff but because of its potential compatibility issues with the neighborhood, it has been referred to the Board. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle ask members of the audience and or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. No additional items were moved from the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 3. Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Discussion Items: 2. 220 E. Olive Street— Modification of Standards, # 27-07 4. East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 5. Interstate 25 —State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 6. 1225 Redwood Street— Minor Amendment, # 30-02B Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from the September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Motion was approved 50 Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 2 Project: 220 East Olive Street-- Modification of Standards, # 27-07 Project Description: This is a request for six stand-alone Modifications of Standard in conjunction with a pending multi -family redevelopment Project located at 220 East Olive Street. All six Modifications relate to density, lot coverage and height standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B zone district. The parcel is located at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. Recommendation: Approval subject to two conditions --one condition relating to preserving the integrity of underground utilities and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west elevation shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height Review and Section 3.5.1(H) — Land Use Transition. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is for six stand-alone Modifications in conjunction with a pending Project Development Plan located at 220 East Olive Street. All six Modifications relate to development standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B zone district. The pending P.D.P. would be a request for a multi -family redevelopment project at the northwest comer of Olive and Mathews Streets across from Library Park. The existing structure would be razed. The proposal consists of constructing a new four-story building consisting of 14 dwelling units with parking below -grade. The fourth story would be stepped back from the first three stories except along a portion of the north facade. The first floor units would offer an option for live -work potential. Access to the underground parking would be from the alley along the west property line. This west property line is also the boundary line between the Downtown zone and the N-C-B zone. The lot measures 90' x 140' for a total of 12,600 square feet. Staff has been contacted by an abutting property owner to the west at 230 Remington Street. The owner had indicated that he has concerns with the building achieving a height of four stores along a portion of the west elevation. The owner, who was unable to attend the public hearing, is concerned about the height and mass of the west elevation. While he supports the overall intent and design concept of the project, his particular concerns are as follows: 1. The height and mass of the building's west elevation could be mitigated increasing the step back of the fourth floor from the third floor. 2. The height and mass of the building's west elevation could be mitigated with further architectural embellishment and detail. Both the applicant and architectural consultant have discussed these issues with the adjoining owners and all parties agree to continue to meet in order to resolve these design issues. Jeff Fleischer of Vaught -Frye Architects presented slides that showed space and site plans, elevations, and building cross sections that highlighted the reduced square footage on each of the four building levels. Member Wetzler asked if they'd had conversations with the adjoining property owner. Owner Jay Stoner reported that he'd had an extended conversation with the owner who lives in Boulder. The Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 3 concern, he believes, is he thinks the structure is too flat and too big. He believes that impression comes from the review of the elevation drawings. He believes with a better understanding of the complexity of the elements of design, some of his concerns will be allayed. They want to be good neighbors and will do their best meeting with their architects to reconfigure. It will be a challenge, given the areas for which reductions might be considered are the bedrooms and bathrooms. His goal, however, is to make the neighbor a fan and not an opponent of the project. Public Input None. Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning & Zoning Board approve the six modification of standards for 220 E. Olive Street, #27-07, including the two conditions including the one being the approval of all affected utilities at the time of the review of the P.D.P and at the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the west elevation shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G) — Building Height Review and Section 3.5.1(H) — Land Use Transition. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. Project: East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19-07 Project Description: This is a request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan Map, and to rezone two properties on East Skyway Drive, initiated by City staff. The Plan amendment will change the existing land use designation for two properties from Urban Estate to Commercial and Low Density Residential. The rezoning change is as follows: 1. The first property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive and the existing zoning is Urban Estate. The proposed zoning includes a change to Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property, and a change to Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. 2. The second property is located at 225 East Skyway Drive, with an existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a change to Low Density Residential on the north 1/3 of the property and retains the remaining south 2/3 of the property as Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported this is a City staff initiated action. The Plan amendment would change the existing Structure Plan designation for the subject properties from Urban Estate to a combination of Commercial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, along with partial retention of Urban Estate. The corresponding rezoning changes are as follows: 1) the first property is located at 209 E. Skyway Drive. Existing zoning is Urban Estate. Proposed zoning is a combination of Commercial on the west 2/3 of the property and Low Density Residential on the east 1/3 of the property. 2) The second property, at 225 East Skyway Drive, abuts the first property on the east, with existing zoning of Urban Estate. The proposed zoning is a combination of Low Density Residential on Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 4 the northern 1/3 of the property and retention of Urban Estate on the remaining southern 2/3 of the property. The site consists of two properties located at 209 and 225 East Skyway Drive, as well as Claire Court with its 9 fronting houses. The two properties along Skyway were recently annexed and zoned in April 2007 in Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Claire Court was already within the city limits. The first property at 209 E. Skyway Drive is 3.6 acres and includes a single-family detached home with a home occupation, and a separate metal warehouse used for personal storage. The existing business is a small engine repair operation. The second property located at 225 E. Skyway Drive is 4.8 acres and includes an existing private Montessori School and parking lot, with a horse pasture extending behind the school facility. Claire Court is an existing cul-de-sac with nine single family detached houses. This overall item is a recommendation to City Council on a sequence of two actions. The first action is to amend the City Structure Plan map as a Minor Amendment to City Plan under its criteria found in Appendix C. The second action is to then rezone the two properties along Skyway to be consistent with the Structure Plan, under the criteria of Section 2.9(H)(2) and (3) of the Land Use Code. The changes are recommended because the properties along Skyway do not reflect the character of Farming or Urban Estate designations —they are more in character with both commercial uses in the area and the existing residential neighborhood to the north and east. They believe the Commercial designation is a substantive aspect of proposed changes and reflects the transitional, mixed -use character of area including existing U-Haul and Trucking business on Kelmar Strip to the west and north, the existing single-family homes across Skyway, the Montessori School to the east, the two vacant lots that abut to the south (which also appear candidates for future rezoning,) and the properties to the south/southeast: City natural area, Humane Society headquarters, City Transfort facility and large -lot residential in Lynn Acres subdivision. Additionally, future commercial changes appear likely and would trigger improvements to property such as landscaping, sidewalk, fencing and meeting LUC development standards. New commercial use and required improvements would enhance the street frontage and appearance on East Skyway. Staff also believe the Low Density Residential Designation is minor editing of the Structure Plan Map and more appropriate for remaining eastern portion of 209 and 225 E. Skyway than Urban Estate because of the existing Montessori School located between residential, the existing homes on Claire Court already zoned RL, and future development of residential will match the existing neighborhood across the street and the Claire Court area. Staff is recommending this item move forward for a decision by City Council now rather than wait until the South College Corridor Plan is completed in 18 months. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman noted what appeared to be an error on the Structure Plan map, a panhandle extension of UE into the POL zone. Wray responded that error was discovered at the Board's work session and would be corrected prior to City Council review. Member Smith said Wray noted it was not appropriate to have UE between Commercial and Residential; would the same logic not apply between RL to POL? Wray responded that POL reflects public ownership of that property and is appropriate for City acquired land. Smith said his concern is the character of the property. Wray responded that the zoning designation is consistent with other publicly owned land and reflects an assembly of City acquired property. When looking at Skyway, they discovered the map did not reflect the particular POL parcel accurately. These recommended changes reflect the correct configurations. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 5 Chair Lingle asked, "In the existing LIE, what is the status of 209 Skyway and the Montessori school — are they considered legal non -conforming uses?" Wray responded that the property is legal as a private residence with a home occupation small engine repair business and a detached warehouse for personal use. The Montessori school is allowed in UE and in Low Density Residential. The recommendation for the zoning change was made given the commercial uses to the west and LMN uses to the north. Chair Lingle noted the line between the C and LR did not follow the parcel line; did the demarcation come from a legal description? Wray said yes. Lingle said it appeared near the eastern edge of the commercial area. Wray reported the line was drawn 20 feet from the existing home to allow for setback. In the event the owners wanted to subdivide, it would be compatible with other lot sizes in the area. Chair Lingle said it appears the impact from 209 Skyway would be to the south as opposed to the east. Member Schmidt said she was comfortable with 209 Skyway in C but has reservations with the proposal to rezone property east on Skyway as LMN. The existing zoning is UE, we're changing it to RL but the Structure Plan will be LMN. Her preference would be to leave as UE until the Corridor Plan is completed. Wray said after Phase I of the Southwest Annexation, staff has had a chance to further review the UE zoning (found in rural settings) and think it would be more suitable along the edges. In the larger context, given the mix of uses and what else is on Skyway, LMN would aid in the transition more than UE. Public Input Brian Schumm, 805 Molina, shared his reservations about the migration of commercial zoning to the east. There are reasons the County, and now the City, should give pause to how the area is zoned. The existing Structure Plan seems appropriate —the proposal is a patchwork of zoning —inconsistent with the Structure Plan. If we are going to allow commercial east of the Kelmar strip, then all properties on the east side should have the same opportunity to be commercial. Action now predetermines what will be studied and determined in the Corridor Plan study. Randy Whitman, 209 E. Skyway, noted the previous speaker (Mr. Schumm) is not directly affected by zoning for the area. His business has been approved in the County. The past few years, he's been trying to work with the County and then because of the IGA (intergovernmental agreement,) with the City. What staff member Pete Wray says makes perfect sense —it is commercial south of them in the Larimer Humane Society and Transfort area. If Aran Street does go in, it will provide perfect access for commercial and a nice transition into the neighborhoods. He supports the request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan Map, and to rezone the two properties on East Skyway Drive. Danielel Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, asked if any homes will be torn down? Wray responded this was a proposal to amend the Structure Plan map and rezoning —there would not be any demolition of existing homes. Andrea Phillipe, 209 E. Skyway, said the proposal has a lot to do with progress. Over the past nine years, they been trying to work first with the County and now the City to get the property rezoned. They're happy that now it is only one entity with whom they will need to work. The property is ready to be commercialized and would be an asset to Fort Collins. End of Public Input Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 6 Chair Lingle asked Staff member Wray if he had any responses to the issues raised in public input. Wray responded that at neighborhood meetings (summarized and included in the agenda packet,) the majority of neighbors are in support of the rezoning —only Mr. Schumm is opposed. Member Schmidt asked for more information on Aran Street. Does it currently run north and south? Wray responded Aran Street is a proposed future connection on the back side of the Kalmar strip starting at the U-Hall property and extending to Trilby. It would separate the commercial and residential zones. Schmidt asked if the right-of-way currently exists. Wray responded no. It would happen as projects come forward —the appropriate dedication would take place then. Schmidt asked if a commercial development was proposed in the Skyway area, would they be the party responsible for the dedication of the street. Wray responded that it would depend on the specifics of the proposal. Chair Lingle asked Wray what is the approximate street frontage for 209 Skyway/RL. Wray responded 60-80 feet. Lingle has a concern about that remaining UE but for a different reason —it is narrow. Because of the street configuration of Boyne Court to Colby Street, if there would be an allowable street coming from Skyway drive to the south, it is likely the development of residential would be limited to one lot on Skyway and a second lot off the south. Wray agreed. There's a potential for two, maybe three lots there. Lingle went further to state —the access would be difficult. What that tells him is there would be pressure in the future to have that area rezoned C and push commercial development further east. He'd rather see it included in the larger UE parcel to the south and used in some sort of cluster development proposal where that narrow strip could be dedicated open space —which would provide more protection from commercial to the residential units to the east. It is a guessing game but it's a walk through on the potential for development in that area. Member Schmidt agreed. She liked to see the rezoning more connected to the UE zone, part of the Structure Plan, and leave some flexibility on how it could be laid out for the future. She understands why the commercial needs to be cleaned up now but she'd like some flexibility for the rest. Member Rollins asked Wray if he'd considered leaving the large building on the west part of the property as UE? Wray responded they did consider that and their findings were the small engine repair business (a large garage) is a part of the home. Rather than split it they thought it would be better to calculate the setback from the edge of the building. Rollins asked if the house, with the small engine repair business, an allowable use in UE. Wray responded yes. Member Schmidt asked if a separate use could be added in the commercial zone. Wray responded that if another use is requested it would trigger a commercial development review. Staff would look at the proposed use and whether an enclosed building is required. Additional improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, fence improvements, and right of way requirements might also be required based on the scope of the proposed development. Chair Lingle said he thinks there are basically two questions. 1) Is the property basically residential or commercial in nature? If commercial in nature and rezoned to C, would the Board be allowing an appropriate amount of intensification that is detrimental or not? 2) If appropriate to go with Commercial, is the 60-80 feet along UE (or proposed RL) an adequate buffer to the existing residential to prevent a further encroachment of commercial? I think that commercial should not go any further east than the proposed line and having that strip east remain in UE is probably more appropriate right now. Then allow 225 E. Skyway to be RL and the POL piece POL. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 7 Member Schmidt said she believes they are wrestling with spot zoning. What's happening now is allowed in UE. We're not totally saying it's commercial so keep it that way —it could be either UE or commercial. The impression is rezoning is happening because the applicant would like to intensify commercial uses. She keeps coming back to maybe we should wait for Structure Plan changes which are anticipated in the next 18 months. That would allow us to look at the whole in more detail. Member Rollins agreed. The South College Corridor Plan is going to happen —let's put off rezoning questions until that work is done. Member Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if the motion language is deny versus not recommend. Eckman recommended to not approve would be the most straightforward. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board not approve the East Skyway Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, # 19-07. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said she'll like to see any rezoning as part of the larger South College Structure Plan work. Member Smith said that while he struggled with it, he believes it should be considered in the larger context. Motion was approved 5:0. Project: Interstate 25 & State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the I- 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Pete Wray reported the interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 serves as both the southeastern gateway to Fort Collins and the western gateway to Windsor. The interchange has failed to function at an acceptable Level Of Service ("C") for the past several years. This being the case, numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials and staffs of Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have occurred over the past several years in an attempt to address this failing interchange. The importance of this interchange from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to existing and future development, and gateway into both jurisdictions is significant. Although the Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 8 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area as a high priority project, there is no Federal or State funding available for a new interchange. In other words, the need for the interchange improvement is there, but the money is not. The existing interchange problem cannot be fixed by implementing smaller interim improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp widening. The bridge overpass along with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be replaced to meet the long-term transportation needs for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to replace the interchange is $ 22 million. In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at this interchange (see attached IGA). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was for the two municipalities to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconstruction of this interchange. The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to implement improvements to the interchange. Key objectives included: • Identify Corridor Activity Center with supporting land use • Coordinate with CDOT on EIS Process on preferred alternative • Develop alternative funding mechanisms to allow the project to go directly into final design. Identify supporting frontage road and local street network • Develop action strategies to implement improvements • Plan Process Existing conditions are: • Interchange currently operating at a failing level of service. • Area largely undeveloped • Failing interchange reduces development potential. • Regionally important natural resources and open space close by. • Area serves as a gateway to Windsor, southeast Fort Collins. • Expected to be a regional transit hub. • The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) includes commercial, employment and residential. Natural Resources Recommended buffers are: • 100 to 300 foot buffer of the edge of the natural features. • A 50 foot buffer is recommended for wetlands not adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. • A buffer of 1,320 feet is proposed to protect bald eagle winter roosting areas as defined by Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW.) Transportation plan design includes: • 1-25/SH 392 bridge will be completely reconstructed. • Layout will follow the 'tight diamond' configuration per North 1-25 Draft EIS. • Construction will include: bridge replacement, ramps widening of SH 392 to be in with new frontage roads and acceleration /deceleration lanes on 1-25. • NW frontage road alternatives. • SW frontage road alternatives. Transit & Trails: Transit service, in combination with highway rapacity, improvements, including bike paths and sidewalks will provide alternative transportation options. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 9 • Future local bus services could act as feeder system to proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Park-and-Ride facility along 1-25. • This Plan recommends that the BRT facility (if constructed) would be located in the median of the highway, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Park -and -Ride facilities on both sides of 1-25. • The BRT site could begin as a parking facility. Funding Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challenge. Three funding scenarios match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to repay anticipated bonds over a twenty-year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction of the interchange bridge, ramps, frontage roads and landscaping is approximately $22 million. To identify the most feasible strategy, three combination -funding scenarios were identified: Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and includes a special assessment and property tax for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years, an impact fee imposed on the "travel shed," and a Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or other governmental support is assumed for this scenario. Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes financial support from CDOT ($2.0 million), the NFRMPO ($1.2 million — future allocation), and the municipalities of Windsor ($1 million) and Fort Collins ($1 million); a lower special assessment on CAC landowners (undeveloped land only) that sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property tax on CAC landowners. Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden to a larger area and includes all municipal funding from Scenario 2 and an expanded property tax district with a mill levy. There is also a small special assessment on all undeveloped CAC land that sunset in 10 years and a PIF. In the future, additional public funding (beyond existing assumptions) may become available through sources such CDOT, NFRMPO and a future Regional Transportation Authority. These public funds could be used to supplement funding derived from private sources, reducing the burden on private citizens. Future funding sources such as an RTA would still require a private match and therefore the institutional frameworks outlined above would still be required. While the Plan does not have a specific funding recommendation, it is assumed that one or a combination of these funding scenarios will be used to further negotiate a final funding package to support the cost of the interchange improvements as implementation continues. Critical Action Steps are: • Accept the Plan • Amend the IGA to continue partnership • Request justification for separate action or utilize existing EIS • Commit funding for 1601/EA process and other compliance activities • Amend IGA to secure public and private funding commitments • Assess APF Standards on future development at Interchange • Form General Improvement District • Preliminary/Final Engineering • Begin construction in 2009 — 2010 The 12-month planning rocess, initiated in the fall of 2006, is scheduled for acceptance by City Council on November 69 and the Windsor Town Board November 12, 2007. Staffrequests a Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 10 recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the Interstate 25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan and related items, including amendments to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Member Schmidt asked when you're looking at funding strategies at the end, at which step do you finalize whether you'll be using funding scenario 1, 2, or 3? Wray responded that while three funding scenarios have been identified, it will take further negotiations. Using the basis already established in scenario 2 (with financial support already identified for jurisdictions, MPO, CDOT;) it'll take more discussions with all, including property owners and developers. He anticipates that can happen in the next year or so. Member Schmidt asked if on the west side the buffers meet the wetland standards. Wray asked if it was from roads. Schmidt said yes —road buffering from the wetland when moving the frontage roads to the west. Environmental Planner Dana Leavitt responded it ranges from 50 to 300 feet depending on the wetlands. It's based on the size and value of the wetlands in supporting wildlife habitat. Until an actual environmental ecological study is done we're just making an estimation of the value. Because of development on the southeast side of Swede Lake there's been a lot of disturbance in that area so right now we're proposing a 100 foot buffer from the shoreline and the wetlands. Member Schmidt said it seems the roads meander through the parcels. Will development drive their placement or will the layout of the frontage roads determine how it's developed. Wray responded final alignment on the west side —the three frontage road options —would be addressed as part of development. Ideally they will coordinate several property alignments on both the NW and SW side. There may even be an interim improvement before the final interchange is fully rebuilt. Member Smith asked Wray to describe how the corridor activity center came to be defined — specifically interested in why the southeast boundary is not going as far north to CR 5 and south to State Highway 392 to pick up the single family residences. Wray responded that they were primarily looking for land uses (C & E) on both sides of the interchange that would contribute to reconstruction costs. On the west —there is residential at Mountain Range Shadows and south of the Growth Management Area is residential. In the northeast quadrant (Windsor side) there is vacant land that could potentially be mixed use residential. Member Schmidt asked if there would be development fees —residential properties assessed a special district fee because they would be benefiting from the interchange improvements. Wray responded in funding option 3 an expanded property tax district with a mill levy was being considered all the way to College on the west and most of Windsor on the east side. It would involve a lot more people and multiple jurisdictions. It would also be a lot more controversial. Some would say that's a more equitable approach since it's a regional facility. Chair Lingle asked where the recommendation is coming from for the bridge being 4 versus 6 lanes. Where is that decision coming from, what is the data, how long is the life span? Interim Transportation Director Mark Jackson said the analysis for the 4 lane bridge is directly related to the recently completed 1-25 Environmental Impact Study, local traffic impacts and forecasts both for the Front Range and metropolitan Denver. Lingle said he would like to be reassured that the decision is not totally being driven by cost. Jackson said that he does not believe that's the case. He believes they're looking at a long range horizon —to the year 2035 or roughly 25 years. Lingle wondered if planning for that time frame is standard practice. Jackson responded yes. Lingle asked if there were any 6 lane bridges along the 1-25 corridor. Jackson responded no —in fact the Harmony Interchange is a 4 lane bridge. Jackson said Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 11 on the west, where there may be more intense development, there will be planning for the proper amount of access for the level of intensity with an adopted access control plan. Chair Lingle referred to page 44 of the 1-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan —it shows only three thru lanes. He wondered if we were locking ourselves into something too narrow for CDOT's ultimate plan for 1-25 as seen so far from their lane expansion from Dacono to Hwy 66. Jackson said CDOT is evaluating two packages as a part of their EIS —one is through lanes with a transit element (bus and/or train) and the other are 1-25 lanes with a transit system on the Burlington Northern tracks. Lingle asked if we're moving on an accelerated schedule would we be committing ourselves to something that wouldn't work later with CDOT's planning. Jackson said no —what the Board is approving tonight is a recommendation to more forward. Either CDOT package determination would be addressed in the final design of the interchange. A recommendation to move forward does not preclude either CDOT (Federal Highway Administration approved) option. Additionally the 1601 would include a more fine grain analysis before design work is completed. Member Schmidt wanted to commend the work of all those involved in developing the plan. Member Smith said it's a fairly complex project but very well thought out. It's a great plan and he'll be supporting it. Chair Lingle said his concerns about bridge design meeting the long term needs of the region had been relieved. Member Wetzler says is a long needed and exciting project. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Interstate 25 & State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0. Project: 1225 Redwood Street — Minor Amendment, # 30-02B Project Description: This is a referral of a Minor Amendment to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwood Street into a supervised residential program specializing in voluntary drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The existing building contains 20,500 square feet. The parcel is 5.5 acres, located at the northwest corner of Conifer Street and Redwood Street and zoned Community Commercial — North College, C-C-N. Recommendation: Approval Hearin Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Shepard reported this is a request to convert the existing facility at 1225 Redwood Street into a supervised residential program specializing in drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The project would be located at 1225 Redwood Street. The facility would house clients, admitted on a Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 12 voluntary basis, who seek to recover from drug and alcohol addiction in a residential setting. The facility will be professionally staffed on a 24-hour and seven -days -per -week basis. The staff will implement a modified 12-step program. The treatment will consist of three basic components: detoxification and withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling. A licensed physician will supervise the admittance procedure and the facility will not admit clients in need of a medically assisted withdrawal. Such clients will be referred to an appropriate facility. The one-story building contains 20,500 square feet. Any building renovations would be to the interior only. There will be no exterior building modifications or site work. All existing parking will remain. The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located at the northwest corner of Conifer Street and Redwood Street. The property is zoned Community Commercial — North College. The proposed land use, Intermediate Health Care Facility is permitted in the C-C-N, Community Commercial, North College zone district. The P.D.P. as a whole complies with the applicable General Development Standards. The Land Use Code is silent on most of the operational characteristics of an Intermediate Health Care Facility. The applicant's pledge to meet on a regular basis with representatives from the neighborhood is found to be the most effective and systematic method by which to collaborate on solving neighborhood compatibility issues as they arise. Staff recommends approval. Chair Lingle asked Shepard if from his review he believes it would be an intensification of its' existing use. Shepard said that intensification is a term sometimes associated with traffic. Even comparing intensification of use to a prior like facility (Wing Shadow) is difficult. Wing Shadow's program which included a school and its use followed the school year. In addition, they had approximately 20 youth in a group home. It is likely they had more traffic coming and going than what is expected with A Life Worth Living. Lingle noted occupancy limits would be governed by building standards. Shepard agreed. Member Schmidt asked, "Where is the closest neighborhood?" Shepard replied the closest neighborhood is to the north —Nokomis P.U.D. To the south and west is vacant land. To the east is an electrical substation. Applicant Glen Petcavage is the representative of a group of Colorado businessmen whose goal is to create a non-profit residential drug rehab program. Statistics show that in Colorado one in ten people have a drug or alcohol addiction. It is the intent of the owners to put a dent in the problem. 1225 Redwood fits their purposes nicely —very little needs to be done internally except to update the fire suppression system. The history of the property's use is: • 1985 New Beginnings Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center • 1993 Jacob Center, a substance abuse program • 1995 Diamond Crest Elder Board & Care Assisted Living Facity • 2002 Wing Shadow program which provided a variety of services for troubled youth The facility will deliver a modified 12-step program. The various steps include: • Detox/withdrawal • Life Skills courses 0 One-on-one counseling Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 13 The program is residentially based and requires clients to remain at the facility. The facility will have 24 hours a day/7 days a week staffing. Member Rollins asked what will be the specific hours of operation. Petcavage responded 24/7. He went further to say the traditional model was 28 days. In this case, they will stay as long as necessary (average of 3.5 months) to complete all steps (detox/withdrawal, life skills courses, and one-on-one counseling.) There is a high staff to client ratio and clients do not leave for appointments without being stringently supervised by staff. Member Wetzler asked if they could slip away --take a break from the program. Petcavage noted the program is completely voluntary and at a fairly significant cost to the client. If they want to leave the program, arrangements are made with family members to pick them up or they are taken to the airport (for out-of-state clients.) If would be rare that they would slip away and come back given the limited access, the staff/client ratio, the program objectives. If they leave and want to come back to the program, there would be an interview to see if the program was still a good fit for them or if their return would be a problem for them or others. Wetzler asked how easy would it be for them to steal away and get a drug fix. Petcavage responded it would not be very easy for a number of reasons, primarily because their money is taken from them while there, there are two exit points that are closely monitored, and they are drug tested at entry and during their stay. Member Schmidt noted this is a private facility (not court ordered) with clients investing time and money in recovery. It's not a half -way house but rather a rehab center. Petcavage agreed. If neighbors have concerns he offered an open door policy —let them know their concerns and given the client's confidentiality and HIPPA constraints, they will work with the neighborhood. Member Schmidt asked how much traffic did they envision from visitors and family. Petcavage expects 82 clients at capacity. Visits will be structured and arranged a week in advance for Sundays and holidays only. They expect average traffic on any given Sunday to be 6 or 7 visitors. Family will be involved more as they get ready to leave the program. Chair Lingle asked if the emphasis for the facility going to be local, regional or national. Petcavage said they would be starting regionally but as time goes by and referrals grow they expect a national mix. Chair Lingle noted the amendment is strictly related to a change of use. He asked for clarification from what to this? Shepard responded the previous minor amendment (from Wing Shadow to current use (as day care)) was not referred to the Board. This amendment is changing it from its current use to what's being proposed. Member Schmidt asked what was the difference between a rehab program and a large group care facility. Shepard said they are defined differently in the Land Use Code. Wing Shadow was a school, a group home, and administrative offices; this use is defined as a long term care facility. Public Input Danielle Kanczes, 1560 Blue Spruce, noted her daughter currently goes to day care at this site. She attended the neighborhood meeting held a couple of weeks ago and she wanted to express her concerns to the Board. She has concerns about the change to a rehab center —she doesn't believe rehab is successful 99% of the time —in fact she knows people who can fool the system. Additionally, she thinks it'll bring crime to the neighborhood —violence and vandalism. She'd rather see it keep its current use. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 14 Yvonne Ruth-Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce is a neighbor to Danielle. There are a large number of children in the area --she believes the rehab center will bring drugs and adversely affect the children in the neighborhood. She asked for clarification of a letter she'd recently received relative to the facility having medically assisted withdrawal. She has concerns about breach of contract —she believes the day care had entered into a three year lease for the facility. How does change of use fit into the fact there may be a breach of contract? Jim Ringenberg, attorney for the Pruess Family Foundation, said he wanted to clarify there is no written lease. He does not think the foundation, who has given significantly to the community, should be placed in a category alluding to breach. He's also comfortable given the discussion so far that reasonable minds can come together. End of Public Input Petcavage reported they have a physican on staff to do a medical review on intake to assess the addict's condition. There are some addictions that are very difficult to withdraw from. If that's the situation, they are referred to another facility. They do not have a medical program per se. Their program is for addicts whose withdrawal does not require medical support. Chair Lingle asked them to address the misconception about being out patient with people coming and going. Petcavage said the patient comes in to do the program. If they need to leave the facility (e.g. an appointment,) they are escorted by staff until they complete the program. When they leave the program arrangements are made for family to pick them up or they are escorted to the airport. Member Schmidt asked what was an accurate representation of cost. Petcavage responded the program is $29,000 whether it takes 3.5 or 6 months. Schmidt asked him to comment on success rates. He replied that every facility struggles. Theirs supports innovation. They want to improve the outcome and reverse this deadly disease and the life problems it creates. Overall, it puts a demand on the field to improve the outcome. Member Smith noted on page 4 of the staff report where it talks about parking, it says minor amendments may be authorized by the Director... comply with the standards of the Land Use Code; is the Board replacing the Director in this case? Director Gloss responded yes. Chair Lingle asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman a general question... he understood the whether there is a lease or not that is the purview of another entity. He did, however, want to know if there needs to be some evidentiary resolution to the tenant's right to do what is being proposed. Eckman said he believes the Code has a provision that allows the Applicant to act with authority of the owner. Attorney for the owner, Jim Ringenberg, stated the owner gives permission to the application. Further, Eckman wanted to stress that issues raised before the City (e.g. Homeowner covenants or leases) are not the purview of the Boards —they are enforced in the courts. If there was a lease, which he believes there is not, and there was a breach —that enforcement would be handled somewhere else. Member Schmidt asked for clarification --once a use has been approved... couldn't it just roll back to the previously approved use? Staff member Shepard responded no —it's not cumulative. Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2007 Page 15 Member Smith made a motion to approve 1225 Redwood Street — Minor Amendment, # 30-02B based on the Findings of Fact on page 6 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. eron Gloss, Direct 'r David Lingle, Chair