Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FACILITY - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 19-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 8 Member Schmidt stated that if the present location across from a sorority house has not been a problem, then this location may not be a problem. She stated concern over the traffic problem and that the non-functioning time will be steadily increasing beyond just peak hours. Chairman Torgerson stated that he would be supporting the motion but had concerns about the schools locating at the site after the County and didn't want to penalize the County for that. However, this may have been an appropriate location for a jail but perhaps not for this type of correction facility. That is substantiated by the fact that six states have adopted legislation in this regard saying that people cannot live, work, or volunteer within 1500 or 2000 feet of this kind of facility. He stated that he would be supporting the motion for denial based on location. He did express appreciation for the project going to great lengths to be compliant with the City's regulations. The motion for denial was approved 4-1 with Member Meyer voting in the negative. Planner Jones clarified that the State Statute says that "In the case of a disapproval, the commission shall communicate it's reasons to the municipality's governing body." Planner Jones stated that he would be drafting a letter summarizing the Board's closing comments and would pass that on to the County Facilities applicants. They will then forward that on to the Board of County Commissioners who can overturn the disapproval by a vote of 2/3 if they choose to. Director Gloss stated that the letter will try to clarify this discussion stating how some of the Board members were opposed to this application relative to location, others added that there was a compatibility issue with regard to character, and members who had concerns about transportation, or extent, impacts. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Approved by the Board January 15, 2004. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 7 this program to transition. This program determines risk by looking at the offense. Those who may have had assault or violent histories or sex offenses would be supervised differently. There are a great deal of assessments to determine what the behavior of the offenders will be. Member Schmidt asked where the number of less that 50 trips during peak times came from. Mr. Bracke replied that about 90% of the residents use public transportation or bike and do not own bicycles. There are only about 33 employees that are spread out over 24-hour days so only 7-9 employees are there at any given time. The hours of operation begin at 7:00. The peak hours in Fort Collins are 7:30- 8:30 and 4:30-5:30. The afternoon shift at the facility is also different so they are at significantly less than 50 trips during peak hours. Member Schmidt asked if the number of bike riders could change. Mr. Bracke replied that he would not expect these people to all get cars as they would not have a location to put them. This is not a high trip generator. Chairman Torgerson shared some of the information he received from the Division of Criminal Justice. He stated that he inquired primarily as to the appropriate distance between this type of facility and a school. Most of the people he talked to stated that this raises red flags and that they would not recommend such close proximity. There are six states that regulate this sort of thing. In every state, this type of facility would not be allowed this close to a school. The only place in Colorado that has regulations is Douglas County and the separation there is 1500 feet which is twice this separation. Member Carpenter moved disapproval of this application due to the close proximity of the schools. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she had a problem with the close proximity of the school to the facility. She stated concern over the character of the proposal as well given that the business park has developed nicely with brick facades and no metal. Once we've said metal is okay, the next building will follow. Member Meyer stated that the jail was there when Seven Oaks put their school in. The County should not have to pay because the schools came in after their master plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 6 Member Craig stated concern about the number of projects that have been approved in that area. Adding this little project may be "like the straw that broke the camel's back." Based on the Land Use Code criteria, there may be nothing that can be done about that. Mr. Bracke stated that any approved development, be it 2 or 3 miles from the intersection, will impact it. This small park is not causing the problem at Prospect and Timberline. It is due more to the level of development on the south of town. Member Carpenter asked if and how the schools and parents were notified. Planner Jones replied that notification was sent out to all properties within 750 feet. Member Carpenter asked if the parents at the school were notified. Planner Jones replied that all property owners of record were notified. Dave Spencer, facilities director for Larimer County, stated that a community meeting was hosted several years ago at the Detention Center. The master plan that had this facility as an inclusion was presented at that time. It was quite well received. The school elected to build directly across the street from the existing Detention Center. Chairman Torgerson asked if Seven Oaks was already there when the County facilities went in. Mr. Spencer required that he was unsure but that the Detention Center dated back to before 1980. He assumed that Seven Oaks made the election to locate their with the knowledge of the Detention Center site. Chairman Torgerson asked if the county commented on the school developments. Mr. Spencer replied that to his knowledge they did not. Member Meyer asked how a high -risk offender would get to that facility Mr. Johnson replied that offenders are sentenced to the program by local judges and there is a variety of risk levels associated with that. What most people would consider to be high -risk individuals would be sentenced to prison. Eventually those people from prison return to their community of origin. Some people use Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Johnson replied that the offenders call when they arrive at their location and call when they leave. GPS would tell exactly where in the community the offenders are, if that technology is used. Member Schmidt asked what the visitor policies are in terms of hours and frequency and how traffic is regulated for family members coming in to pick up residents. Mr. Johnson replied that visiting hours are 7 PM — 10 PM during the week nights which would be after the peak hours for the Timberline and Prospect intersection. Visiting hours on the weekends are 9 AM — 9 PM. In terms of people arriving to take residents to work, most residents work during the day though there are a variety of shifts. The traffic is something that can be monitored and adjusted. The hope is to get a bus route a bit closer to the facility. Member Craig asked about the Adequate Public Facilities criteria, stating that the traffic report stated that they would not be exceeded with the development of the Larimer County Community Corrections facility. She asked Eric Brake, Traffic Operations to clarify that and asked what it would take to exceed them. Mr. Brake replied that Section 3.7.3(F) of the Land Use Code indicates that facilities that produce less that 50 peak hour trips are exempt from the APF criteria. This facility falls into that category. Under the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, if they did have more than 50 peak hour trips, they would have to produce less than a 2% delay and they were at about 0.5% from that analysis. Member Craig asked if adding small businesses to that area would not individually but cumulatively affect that intersection. Mr. Brake replied that was correct. The Land Use Code allows for small developments to move ahead that have very small impact on traffic without being burdened with multi -million dollar roadway projects. Member Craig stated that these projects could be told to wait because we have to have a capital improvement project. Director Gloss stated that in this particular area, there are few lots that have development potential based on the APF standards. There is a recent subdivision approved just west of this application, three lots. Only one lot is available for development. The other two will not be able to develop until the APF standards are met. Given the size and number of parcels left in this area, there is little more development potential. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 4 Planner Jones replied by showing site shots of surrounding buildings. Member Craig asked if other buildings could then come in with metal architectural elements claiming compatibility. She stated concern over turning an employment park into an industrial park. Planner Jones replied that metal could be used as one of the materials and still satisfy the Land Use Code for the Employment zone. It may set a precedent for using metal; however, it would not be prohibited otherwise. Member Craig stated that there is no other metal in the area and wondered if this would be starting a precedent. Chairman Torgerson asked if the Division of Criminal Justice, who monitors the facility, was aware of the change of site. Mr. Johnson replied that they were. Chairman Torgerson asked if they were aware of the proximity to the surrounding schools. Mr. Johnson replied that he was unsure but that they did know it was part of the larger correctional campus. Chairman Torgerson stated that he had spoken with the Division of Criminal Justice regarding what would be an appropriate amount of separation between schools and this type of facility. He sated that he spoke with Nancy Feldman, Director of Sexual Offenders, and that she expressed grave concern over the proximity of this facility to schools, based on the fact that the facility may house sexual offenders. He asked if sexual offenders would be a part of the program. Mr. Johnson replied that they do accept sexual offenders from Fort Collins. There are currently 6 sex offenders at the facility and there are about 160 registered sex offenders in Fort Collins. We have a much stricter program for sex offenders at our facility and GPS tracking can be used. Sex offenders must preset their schedules with their case managers. They basically go to work and treatment and the case managers would specify the exact route the offenders would take to those locations to keep them away from schools, bike trails, day care centers, or other problematic facilities. Chairman Torgerson expressed concern about the residents breaking those rules and asked how often they deviate from the set routes and how that is tracked. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 3 Randy Zadock, architect with GSG Architecture, gave his part of the applicant presentation to the Board. He stated that the attempt was to remain consistent with the rest of the Larimer County campus architecture while still keeping the building "softer" for residential use. The primary mass of the building is the 3- story dormitory wing. The single -story mass is primarily support and office space for staff. The two-story area sits between the two other areas. Concrete masonry units will be used to match the other buildings. Inset into the block is aluminum framing with insulated tinted glass windows. All of the rooftop units are fully screened. Victor Johnson, interim director of the facility, gave his part of the applicant presentation to the Board. He stated that the facility on Laurel Street has been very successful and supported by its neighbors. He stated that there should be no reason that residents should travel to the areas of Seven Oaks and Liberty Schools as they are east of the facility. There may be times when clients may need to travel near Rivendell School but the facility can control that they not travel on the same side of the street as the school. If a client violates those rules, they can be terminated from the Community Corrections Program and will be sentenced to prison. If an offender is of higher risk, there are many means of supervision, including GPS. With regard to the traffic problems at the Timberline and Prospect intersection, the facility will do anything possible to alleviate those. Staffing patterns are flexible based on the fact that the facility operates 24 hours a day. Clients can be shuttled during peak hours and many travel by bike or are transported by family members. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt asked what the timeframe for completion and move -in would be. Tim Stern, Delta Construction, replied that ground -breaking will be about August 15, 2003 and that there is an 8-month construction schedule leading to completion on April 15, 2004. Move in would start approximately at that time. The goal is to be out of the existing facility by May 8, 2004. Member Craig asked where the compatibility was coming from with the metal parts of the building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 2 Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. The site is located at the intersection of Specht Point and Midpoint Drive, generally at the southeast corner of Timberline and Prospect, directly west of the existing Detention Center. The development of this facility will allow the closing of the halfway house on Laurel as those residents will be moved to this facility. The building is 3 stories in parts, 2 stories in parts, and single story on the south side of the building. Planner Jones stated that the State Statute 31-23-209 guidelines supercede the Land Use Code for this project and that this review is a Site Plan Advisory Review which should be based on the location, character, and extent of the application. Planner Jones cited a few potential concerns with the project: schools in the area, traffic congestion on Timberline and Prospect, and architectural issues. With respect to location, the school sites will be off-limits to the residents of the facility. A traffic study was submitted with the result that the project will not detrimentally affect the intersection. The issue with architecture involves whether or not the building is compatible with surrounding architecture. Staff feels that it is. Staff is recommending approval on location, character, and extent for this application. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, spoke on behalf of Larimer County and gave the applicant presentation. She stated that the design team did all it could to meet the general standards in the Fort Collins Land Use Code despite the fact that the Larimer County Board of Commissioners will be the final authority on the project. This building will be part of the 36-acre Larimer County campus on that site. The site is 2.8 acres and will provide residential space for 176 individuals as well as associated office space, parking, and outdoor facilities. The building is located along Midpoint Drive. Access to the site is from a 28-foot private drive that aligns with Specht Point Road. The bulk of the parking is located to the southwest of the building. There is some additional parking on the southeast. There are two entrances to the building — one on the southwest and one on the northeast. There is parking for 60 bikes as well. The site is well equipped with sidewalks for pedestrian access. Street trees are provided along Midpoint Drive as per City requirements. There is additional landscaping in the parking lot and around the building. Foundation plantings exist completely around the building. Due to security issues, large evergreens and shrubs were not used. There is a half basketball court, trash enclosure, and outdoor courtyards for both female and male residents. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Craig, Schmidt, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Jones, Wamhoff, Bracke, and Alfers. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the March 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ03-07 — Easement Vacation. Discussion Agenda: 3. #19-03 Larimer County Community Corrections Facility — Site Plan Advisory Review. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Items 1 and 2. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Larimer County Community Corrections Facility, Site Plan Advisory Review, #19-03 Project Description: Request to construct a Community Corrections Facility to house 176 residents on approximately 2.84 acres just west of the existing Detention Center. The new facility will replace the existing Halfway House located on West Laurel Street. The building will contain 32,400 square feet and will include offices, visitation rooms, kitchen/dining areas, classrooms, resident bedrooms, day rooms, and laundry facilities. Staff Recommendation: Approval