Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJACOB FAMILY SERVICES REDWOOD CENTER - 56 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1993 Page 9 stated that there are issues of safety and compatibility with the neighborhood. He commented that there was a concern about the guidelines for the advisory board. Member Fontane suggested greater understanding between county agencies regarding the Jacob Center and understand that Phase I was for land use approval. Member Strom moved for approval of the Jacob Center Phase I with the condition that four (as a minimum) neighborhood representatives be on the advisory board that is establishing policy and that a limit of 40 youth residents be allowed. Member Klataske second the motion. Chairperson Cottier commented that the social services agencies, when considering the licensing of the Jacob Center, should consider the compatibility of the neighborhood to the use of the facility as discussed this evening. She encouraged more communication with the neighborhood and governmental agencies in a responsible and positive manner. Mr. Eckman brought the question of the definition of the neighborhood. He suggested that the advisory board be selected from a one mile radius. Member Fontane offered the list of notification of the site plans as being a good reference point. Mr. Peterson recommended a one mile radius. Members Strom and Klataske agreed to the amendment to the motion that the "neighborhood" be defined as a one mile radius of the site. Member Strom commented that our community needs these kinds of facilities, for example, 33 out of 37 adolescents that would qualify for this type of program were currently placed outside the county. He hoped to provide for these needs in our own community and from a land use viewpoint. He stated that he was very pleased by the neighborhood participation working together in the process of planning, rather than just in opposition. Chairperson Cottier commented on the duration of stay. Mr. Carlson stated there was no restriction, by statute, that each individual be reviewed every six months by various reviewing bodies and agencies. The motion passed 4-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1993 Page 8 traffic impacts as stated in the LDGS. He focused on land use conflicts criteria under Administrative Guidelines, in particular question #3, which reads as follows: "Have the conflicts that have presumed to exist between the proposed development and the surrounding land uses, as examined in Administrative Guidelines pertaining to land use conflicts been effectively mitigated in the Planned Unit Development?" Mr. Eckman stated the Board may have analysis under Land Use Conflicts as it relates to safety and privacy, beyond traffic safety. Chairperson Cottier further asked to the appropriateness of the Board's approval of program elements, such as restriction of correctional juvenile justice system youth to social service youth only. Mr. Eckman replied that the Board's decision and conditions would need to be tied clearly to criteria stated in the LDGS so there is governmental purpose behind the condition. Member Fontane commented on the possibility of youth's unauthorized leave from the facility. Mr. Carlson stated that Jacob Center has a "staff secure" facility and that there would be as much physical security as can be set up in the facility without it being locked. Locked facilities have different criterion and licensing status. This was proposed as a treatment center and not a detention center. Security is important and there will be an "awake staff" around the clock. The design of the facility allowed only limited physical egress (delayed locks will be examined). Youth will not be allowed visits other than from families and professionals which are planned. Private cars would not be allowed. Member Strom asked if this facility would be used as the previous facility was used. Ms. DeWitt stated that RCCF was not a locked facility. She stated that it was difficult to summarize if the types of youth using the facility are similar to residents of the previous use. The population of youth is different. Mr. Eckman asked if RCCF was required to be locked for some regulatory reason. Ms. DeWitt replied that, by definition, RCCF cannot be locked. She stated that they would need to go to a higher level of residential treatment center for a locked facility. Member Strom observed that the Board was not changing the physical character of the facility and that the Board doesn't have a significant problem with traffic or transportation impacts. He added that the City doesn't have a substantive privacy issue with surrounding land uses. He Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1993 Page 7 security. This was not a locked facility and review of residents was critical. She added that the Jacob Center has not yet been licensed. Member Fontane asked if there were children placed from outside the area. Ms. DeWitt stated there were 33 county residents whose length of stay of 12-16 months was out of the county. Mr. Nittman concurred with Ms. DeWitt that there was a need for well -run therapeutic programs of this nature in the Larimer County area. The judicial system has a communication concern with Jacob Center in that there has been no meeting with them to date. He did receive some written information this evening. He stated that he was meeting with the Larimer County Commissioners on October 13 to talk with the Jacob Center about a population of youth in the "correctional" realm and temporary holding. He believed there was a need for higher planning standards in this arena. Chairperson Cottier stated that, as the Planning and Zoning Board, the concern was in regard to land use and not "program design" of the Jacob Center. She stated that the Board cannot divorce themselves from looking at the program contents, that is why they have had social services staff present. She stated that for Phase I, the Board's concern was whether this facility was appropriate land use for this site and the surrounding neighborhood. She asked about licensing the Jacob Center through proper channels with approval of the program. Mr. Carlson replied that the Jacob Center will be licensed by the State Department of Social Services and a bid or contract could be obtained through the Division of Corrections if the program was approved by proper channels. Member Fontane stated her concern about a ceiling of high -risk youth and questioned if this could be done. Mr. Carlson indicated the advisory board would set that limit. Chairperson Cottier asked Mr. Eckman how much the Board should be considering program design or content. Mr. Eckman replied that the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) indicates that the Planning Director has discretion in these matters and "unfettered discretion" should not be exercised. He stated that the Board should focus their attention in compliance with LDGS criteria. The "All Development Criteria" indicates that the Board can determine neighborhood compatibility, neighborhood meetings, neighborhood character, land use conflicts, and adverse Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1993 Page 6 Kim Severson, resident 913 Grouse Circle, had concerns for the safety of the neighborhood children, neighboring low-income teens in area, and residents of neighboring mobile home parks. She wanted all questions to be answered before the proposal was approved. Diane Matthew, resident 1550 Blue Spruce Drive, indicated that there were approximately 80 children residing in her low-income area. She stated that some are high -risk kids and she was concerned about security and limiting the areas the Jacob Center residents may come from. She stated these types of care facilities were mostly located in the northern portion of Fort Collins. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Cottier inquired about the neighborhood representation, the selection process and what control would the Jacob Center have over the selection process of the residents. Mr. Carlson replied that, initially, they would be determined by the by-laws and submittal of names from the neighborhood. The requirement would be that a definite number of representatives on the Advisory Board would come from the local community. The selection of the youth for residency may be difficult, as advisory boards, as a rule, decide on issues of policy and criteria rather than which specific youth would reside at the facility. He stated that the neighborhood advisory board members would be allowed to be involved in the selection process for informational purposes only. Chairperson Cottier stated that she understood that there would be no veto power with the advisory board. The power to reject an applicant remains with Jacob Center which will receive input from the advisory board. She understood that if a youth was in a local school, they could be allowed to continue their education there. Member Strom asked if the Jacob Center residents would continue in their schools and not be allowed to attend adjacent neighborhood schools. Ms. Carlson replied that this was possible for certain youth and others would be schooled at the site. Laurie Muth, Community Services Board, stated that she was reluctant to approve of the Jacob Center without addressing supervision and documentation of materials, curriculum, and training. She added that there will be a meeting of the Community Services Board on Thursday, October 7, to discuss this issue. Ms. DeWitt, Child and Family Services Division, stated that her purpose was not to approve or disapprove of the Jacob Center but only to provide information about services available. She stated her concern was for safety, well -run therapeutic programs, and good solid supervision and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1993 Page 5 JACOB CENTER AT NEW BEGDMMS PU•REFERRAL OF ADMINISTRATI Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report. She stated that an administrative change of use was referred to the Board. The LDGS was used as criteria and Staff recommended approval. She stated that there were several representatives of the County Youth Services that were present and would be first to speak. PUBLIC INPUT Brent Nittman, Manager of Juvenile Division of Larimer County Corrections for 13 years, stated that there were further qualifications for mandatory screening of residents in the facility. He submitted a flow chart for the Judicial System as it applies to juveniles and to relevant statutes. He addressed two issues which include form and function as to the use of facilities. He raised a question as to the proposed facilities with regard to control of the youth population. Laurie Kiuf, Larimer County Sheriff's Department and chairperson of the Community Review Board appointed by the County, explained the function of the Review Board. Jan DeWitt, Administrator of the Child and Family Services Division for the Larimer County Social Services, explained adolescent care, screening and placement process. John Carlson, applicant and Director of the Jacob Center, stated that the proposal submitted was Phase I. He stated that they were seeking approval for the location and land use of the facility. They have had neighborhood meetings and have shared their concerns of security and the need for an advisory board composed of professionals and 4-5 neighbor residents. He stated that there would be a 30-35 day assessment of residents and a 3-6 month stay at the facility. He added that Phase H of the plan was to work with the local agencies involved. He stated that they would emphasize serving local children when possible. He believed that there was still a need to set up the advisory board and complete the licensing process. He stated that Phase III would be the implementation of the program at the new facility. Freda Weaver, resident of Greenbriar Subdivision, recited a letter in favor of the Jacob Center which was written by her husband, John Weaver, who was unable to attend tonight's hearing. Karen Martinez, resident 807 Quail Run, shared concerns about the advisory board liaison with the neighborhood and veto power for 4-5 people on that board to screen residential applicants. She believed that the number of 40 residents was high for this facility. She had concerns about at -risk residents being allowed off -campus privileges as well as a mandate that only youth from Larimer County or rural areas, not from inner cities, would be allowed. 1 • 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING iVIINUTES October 4, 1993 Continuation of the September 27, 1993 Meeting Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The October 4, 1993 meeting of Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Jennifer Fontane, and Jim Klataske. Members Clements -Cooney and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Kayla Ballard and Carolyn Worden. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20. Rangeview PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #28-80D; Item 21. Jacob Center at New Beginnings PUD -Referral of Administrative Change, Case #56-93; Item 22. Cunningham Corner, Tract C - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #4-83N; Item 23. Rose Tree Village at Cunningham Corner - Preliminary, Case #4-830; Item 24. Matterhorn PUD - Preliminary, Case #49-93; Item 25. Orchard Place PUD - Preliminary and final, Case #40- 93A. MuMe"UNKSINUTURt 1� The approval of the minutes for the September meetings was postponed until the next regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting in October. PLANNING FEES Ms. Albertson -Clark introduced the planning fees for adoption. She stated that sub -elements have been discussed by City Council, one the park -land increase (implemented) and the second to re-evaluate the existing planning fee schedule to present to Council. She stated that the amount of time staff involved in reviewing applications was considered for annexations, zonings, PUDs, subdivisions and a variety of site plans. The current fee schedule has not been evaluated on a comprehensive basis, nor has it been increased. As a result, they are at the same level they have been at for the last 10 years. These fees are 2-12 percent of the current cost, in all areas of review (Community Planning and Environmental Services, Utility Department and a variety of other city departments that provide development review as a service to the community). She added that many of the costs are not being compensated for or recovered. An evaluation of current fee policy that was adopted last year brings us to recommend an increase in these fees. She stated that Staff was recommending 50 percent recovery of the community -at -large benefits