Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/16/2020Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers Jeffrey Schneider, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad David Katz Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing January 16, 2020 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hobbs, Hogestad, Katz, Whitley Absent: Schneider Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Ward, Holland, Wilkinson, Virata and Manno Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, spoke to criteria on PUD’s, the quasi-judicial nature, how determination is made (what it is based upon) and the lack of good planning results within the community. Kathryn Dubial, 2936 Eindborough Dr., spoke to the Harmony Gateway Plan and would like to see full and equal consideration to Plan E. In addition, she has concerns over scenario D and unlimited land use, the neighborhood meeting related to residential building and the last-minute cancelation for a second time. Director Leeson spoke to Kathryn’s comments relating to the neighborhood meeting the previous week. He apologized that there was another cancellation due to additional information being received wherein there was not enough time to allow the Board members to review this additional information. Chair Hansen asked if Council followed the same considerations as the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Yatabe commented that the Planning and Zoning Board did review Montava under the same standards and procedures as Council. Division 4.29 of the Land Use Code. Member Haefele has not been receiving subscription notifications. Someone needs to check to see if something has changed with the notifications. UConsent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 19, 2019, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which consists entirely of the draft minutes from the December 2019 hearing. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. UDiscussion Agenda: 2. Larimer County Jail Expansion (Midpoint Campus) SPA190004 Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing Larimer County Jail located on Midpoint Drive. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Board to provide comments on the plan to the governing body (Board of Larimer County Commissioners) per State statute. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that a letter was received from Andy Reese, representing the Bucking Horse HOA, stating they are neither for nor against the project, but they are requesting consideration of measures that can lessen the impact on their subdivision. Ex parte communication received Member Katz disclosed that he has a professional relationship with Andy Reese. He also disclosed that he received a text in opposition of this project from someone in the Bucking Horse neighborhood but that he had not responded. He does not feel that either of these points will affect his judgement. Chair Hansen disclosed that he too has a professional relationship with Andy Reese. He does not feel that this will affect his judgement. Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Michael Clark, DLR Group, also provided a verbal/visual presentation for the project. The goal is to reduce the overall jail like appearance, increase safety and overall flow. They will be using cut-off lighting and have worked diligently to provide landscaping that works well for the facility and surrounding area. Member Haefele asked about whether staff will be driving through or under a wing to get to intake parking. Mr. Clark responded yes, that this is controlled access. It is one-way flow. Everyone will enter at one point and have options for leaving. Member Katz asked if the site plan is updated from the one presented at the work session; Mr. Clark responded yes. Member Katz asked what the distance was from the Southwest corner of the parking lot to the Bucking Horse neighborhood. Mr. Clark has not measured but felt they provided standard parking stalls and it could be right around 200’. Member Hogestad asked if the “the loop” was a two-lane access. Mr. Clark responded that it could be and is planned for firetruck access if there is an emergency. Planner Holland provided analysis of how this complies with the Land Use Code in relation to the SPAR review process. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Andy Reese, member of Bucking Horse Board, spoke to the possibility to affecting the site layout in particular the Southwest Corner. Are there opportunities to mirror the Southern most parking row so that it would be shifted to the East. Keith Chatfield, 2002 Blue Yonder, he would like clarity on the screening and its density. He wanted to know if the screening could be extended beyond the diagonal area to screen out the bulk of the parking lot. He also spoke to the landscaping and doing what is aesthetically correct, that the trees get watered. Is there an irrigation plan, and if trees die will they be quickly replaced? He also spoke to security and fencing. Staff Response Mr. Hobbs asked if Mr. Clark could speak on behalf of County planning as to if this phase of expansion is seen as a final buildout for the site, or if there are future plans. Mr. Clark responded that there are anticipated expansions of the facility. There is no timeframe at this moment. Member Hobbs wanted to know where or how these future expansions would occur. Mr. Clark responded that currently the most efficient is to extend and build subsequent housing units. Housing units are for inmates, mental and behavioral health. Mr. Clark responded to Mr. Chatfield regarding security. Security arm gates that include a badge-in system are included in both areas. The outdoor storage is for seized vehicles, there is no control over when these items arrive and depart. Screening will be reviewed with the County in relation to security aspects. There cannot be places for people to hide. Mr. Holland responded to Mr. Reese and Mr. Clark in regard to their concerns and comments. It was discussed with the County and the understanding is that it has to do with the number of employees behind the gate. Some of the previous site plan versions showed wider medians with little landscaping, it was suggested that those be removed so that the parking could be opened. Staff is in support of denser screening. Staff would like to talk with County planning and applicant staff in more detail. Irrigation is critical and that landscaping be replaced promptly. Mr. Katz addressed Mr. Clark’s comments about security asking what the process is and if it is quantified in relation to density and screening trees. Mr. Clark responded that it is hard to quantify a living item, but they are looking at every option when it comes to people having the ability to hide. There is a team at the facility that reviews items and reports back. Planning & Zoning Board January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Member Hobbs questioned staff as to their position on perimeter fencing for shielding. Mr. Clark commented that officers back into their parking spaces and you would get their rear lights. This would happen at shift change. Adding a fence may not be received well because you cannot see if someone were hiding. Member Hogestad asked if the criteria for determining plantings and fences was an established set of criteria or arbitrary. This happens on a case by case basis. Regarding the vehicle storage area, is this for spare cars, damaged cars, etc.? Mr. Clark responded that there is a seized vehicle lot, this lot must be secured and protected. Member Hobbs asked how often there is a shift change. Mr. Clark responded, twice per day, every twelve hours (no idea how many will come in or out, nor do I know how many parking spaces). Traffic Engineer Wilkinson responded that there are 120 employees at the jail in the course of an average weekday. Member Haefele asked about the largest parking lot that comes closest to the residential neighborhood, that is just the 12-hour shift change parking lot? Yes. The other lots to the East are visitors and other staff? Mr. Clark respond that to the East; the parking is for long term Sheriff’s administration visitors. The central lot is for jail administration. Planner Holland responded that there is a total of 708 parking spaces planned on the campus. They are adding 77 parking spaces, 631 to 708. This includes the two special parking areas. Member Hogestad questioned if the colors would be relatively the same range of colors from the existing buildings. Mr. Clark responded yes, because they are tying into existing buildings. On the existing buildings, there are some metal panels. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Mr. Clark if this phase is a final buildout for the site or if there will be additional items in the future. Mr. Clark feels that there will be future buildout, timing is unknown. It would make most sense to build housing units for inmates, mental and behavioral health inmates. Member Hobbs does not disagree with any of Planner Hollands suggested comments for this SPAR approval. He appreciates the safety and security of the officers, staff and neighborhoods that has gone into the planning and should take precedence. He supports the County staff in what they feel is their highest priority. Member Katz appreciates the applicant’s effort to add the screening and the landscape. He would like to see more solid screening on the Southern and Southwest boarders. Chair Hansen questioned staff in regard to review by County planning staff, how does this play into the overall picture? Planner Holland responded that County planning staff is also reviewing and providing comment. The plan is to coordinate with them. Member Hogestad commented that the neighbors have a valid concern and his hope is that the staff comments are addressed. This is relation to landscaping and screening. Member Haefele concurs. Chair Hansen feels there is a conundrum between providing screening for a buffer and safety concerns. The Land Use Code calls for near 100% screen, in this instance that is not possible, however; breaking it up may help, and he appreciates the efforts. He is leaning toward safety. Member Whitley acknowledges the difficulty in trying to foresee every possible security situation. Member Hogestad questioned if there will be security cameras to cover the site. Mr. Clark responded that there are perimeter cameras on the building, but he could not go further with security location. Member Haefele would like to have the parking lot lights screened. Chair Hansen explained the fixtures and screening of the light source. She does not feel the screening is adequate. Member Hobbs questioned the zero candle and not seeing any bulbs from outside the property. The Board ran through each comment for any changes before making a motion.