Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY EXPANSION SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 22 91 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSrrEM NO. 8 MEETING DATE 5/20/91 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Larimer County Detention Facility Expansion - Minimum Security Addition and Alternative Sentencing Unit - Advisory Review, #22-91 APPLICANT: Larimer County Facilities Division c/o The Architects Studio 117 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80521 OWNER: Larimer County 200 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO. 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to add a 58 bed minimum security addition, a 152 bed alternate sentencing unit, and parking lot improvements to the Larimer County jail. The additions would be built in separate phases. The project is located on the existing jail site which consists of 14.4 acres and is zoned I-L, Limited Industrial. The site is located 1/4 of a mile east of Timberline Road and south of Prospect Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The development of two additions to the county jail by Larimer County is exempt from the City Zoning Code because the facility has been found by the Z.B.A. to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public. The scope of the Planning and Zoning Board advisory review is limited to review of the location, character, and extent of the new facility. The location of an expanded jail in an established industrial park is appropriate. The institutional character and scale of the project are compatible with the surrounding area. The transportation impacts have been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found acceptable. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Larimer County Detention Facility - Advisory Review, #22-91 May 20, 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 2 VVlV 1l 1. Background,• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I-L; Industrial flex space and day care (One Prospect Place) S: I-L; Vacant E: I-L; Vacant and Industrial W: I-L; Vacant and wholesale distribution The property was annexed and zoned in 1973, and is part of Center Point Park subdivision. The subdivision request was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in June of 1981. 2. City's Right of Advisory Review: On April 11, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that the Larimer County Detention Facility is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public, and therefore is exempt from the City of Fort Collins zoning requirements. The statutory authority for making this determination is set forth in Section 31- 23-301 (1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Z.B.A. minutes are attached. Because of this exempt status granted by the Z.B.A., the proposed additions to the existing facility are limited to an advisory review by the Planning and Zoning Board and not the full force of the City's Zoning Code. Colorado Revised Statutes provide one specific reference to the City's right to review the planning and location of public buildings constructed by Larimer County: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. states that no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission (Planning and Zoning Board). 3. Land Use: The I-L, Limited Industrial zone is primarily for light industrial uses. Light industrial shall not include uses such as mining and extracting industries, petrochemical industries, rubber refining, primary metal and related industries. Larimer County Detention Facility - Advisory Review, #22-91 May 20, 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 3 Clearly, a county jail is not a light industrial use. However, the location of such a facility in a light industrial zone is appropriate. In support of allowing the proposed use in the I-L zone, staff finds the following facts to be true: A. The light industrial zone is separated from the nearest residential area by approximately one-half mile. Within this distance is a major arterial street, electrical substation, and lumber and outside storage yard. The location is sufficiently separated from incompatible uses. B. The detention facility is not a heavy industrial use that would add to the level of land use intensity in the industrial park. The size and scale is proportionate with the surrounding industrial uses. C. The detention facility conforms to all the performance standards specified for the various industrial zones. There are no detrimental impacts on adjacent uses due to the proposed additions. D. The consolidation of a minimum security and alternative sentencing unit with the existing county jail takes advantage of security systems already in place. The industrial park is protected by perimeter lighting and existing facility staff. The proposed additions would create a security campus that would be efficient to administer and protect. E. The existing character of the industrial park does not suffer from the addition of the two new units. 4. Design: The structures would be institutional in character. The exterior materials would be masonry to match the existing facility. The height of the new minimum security addition would be two stories, and the alternative sentencing unit would be one story. 5. Neighborhood Compatibility: The existing jail has blended in with the surrounding industrial uses since 1983. over the years, the industrial park has grown and is anchored by such prestigious tenants as Advanced Energy and vVI-ewpNe4-ret• The sense of security is very strong and the presence of a jail has not caused a negative impact on surrounding properties. The industrial park continues to thrive and attract new uses (One Prospect Place P.U.D., July, 1990). Staff finds the proposed uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Larimer County Detention Facility - Advisory Review, #22-91 May 20, 1991 P & Z Meeting Page 4 6. Transportation: A new curb cut would be placed on Midpoint Drive to serve a new parking lot. This new curb cut, as well as the anticipated traffic generation, have been reviewed by the Transportation Department and found to be acceptable. The new traffic generation can be accommodated by the existing street system. ON: It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board advise the Larimer County Commissioners of the following: A. The location of the proposed additions to the county jail, in an approved industrial park, is appropriate. B. The character of the proposed additions conforms to the established character of the existing facility and surrounding area. C. The extent of the proposed additions is of appropriate size and scale. LARIMER COUNTY ITEM: DETENTION FACILITY ADDITION NUMBER: 220-91 44 NEW PARKING SPACES KffCMN MEN /.Al c LARIMER COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY NATIVE ANALYSIS NCI NG 4/1/91 0 \30 60 90 A I I I( Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 7 Appeal #19 . Lot 5, Block 1, Frey Subdivision etween 1808 & 1810 West Mountai - approved. ----- The varia%in.RM uld reduce the re red lot width from 60 feet to 5in order to all a new single-family dwelling zone. ----- The lot platted 'th only feet of lot width. A dwelling has never been con truct on the lot. Without a variance, nothing can -be buil, ----- Staff comments: Non Zoning Administrator, Pe er Barne explained this was an older part of town and this lot w' h requirem is has changed. When this area was platted the lot w' th was 50 feet nd the code required only 40 feet. Mr. Tim Pearson the potential buyer appe ed before the board and stated he has lked with neighbors about ilding a single family home on the ite. The neighbors he spoke 'th were in favor of building a ingle family home on the site. Boardme er Lancaster moved to approve appeal # 82. Boardmember Garbe seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anasta 'o, Huddleson, Gust son, Lancaster, Wilmarth. The appeal passed. Appeal #1983 by Larimer County, 2405 Midpoint Drive - approved. ----- Larimer County is requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals determine that the present and proposed Larimer CountyDetention Facility (Jail) is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public, and therefore is exempt from the City of Fort Collins zoning requirements. The authority of the Board to make this determination is set forth by State law (CRS 31-23-301 (1)). ----- Staff comments: A staff explanation of this law will be presented at the meeting. Boardmember.Lancaster excused himself from this appeal as he is employed by Larimer County. Zoning Administer, Peter Barnes explained the county detention facility is in the IL zone and is not permitted use in the zone. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 8 Paul Eckman; City attorney explained the requirements for the State statute. Mr. Wayne Lawler, facility manager appeared before the Board. When the jail was designed it was foreseen that an addition would be necessary in approximately 10 years. The facility was built in 1983 and there is a crowding problem already. The jail was built to house 152 person, but at 130 it is crowded. At the busiest times the detention facility has had 180-190 inmates. The County has hired a consulting firm and developed a steering committee to look into the expansion of the jail. The County sees a need to build an addition for minimum security that would hold 58-60 inmates. Mr. Carr Beeker, Architect Studio, presented the plan for expansion to the Board. He explained this is an addition to the master plan. There are 14.4 acres of land and there are plans for developing the remaining in the future. The main concern is the overcrowding of the facility. Construction would take approximately 1 year and will start in late summer or early fall of 1991. Boardmember Anastasio asked if the zoning was approved when the detention facility was built in 1983, why then is the County coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained the jail is in the IL zone and that zone does not allow a jail. In 1981 when the jail was originally built, the County did not go through this procedure to exempt them from future plans. Boardmember Anastasio stated that the Board should approve the additions as they happen, not the entire master plan. Boardmember Garber stated the County needs to present their plans to the planning commission for approval after the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Paul Eckman stated this was a matter of law. Boardmember Huddleson stated the Board needed to decide if the information presented did in fact show that the jail is reasonable and necessary for the community. It —was —clear —by —the — evidence submitted, that to him it was necessary. Boardmember Garber stated he felt comfortable leaving the expansion plans up to the county and he felt the addition was necessary. Boardmember Garber moved to approve exemption from the City Zoning requirements for the immediate addition to the detention facility and the master plan because the evidence showed that this was reasonable and necessary for the community. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth. Motion passed.