HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/21/2001E
E
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
6:30
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Phone: 416-7431
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Members Craig and
Colton were absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Waldo, Stringer, Wamhoff, Virata,
Schlueter, Manci, Reiff, M. Jackson, Stanford, Macklin.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the November 16 and December 7, 2000 Planning
and Zoning Board Hearings (CONTINUED).
2. #56-98M Modification of Standards — The Willow at Rigden Farm
(PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY BOARD)
3. #17-01 Modification of Standards — Collindale Golf Course Clubhouse
Discussion Agenda:
4. Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan
(Recommendation to City Council)
5. #1-95C New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development Plan
6. #28-98B Old Town North — Overall Development Plan
7. #28-99A Old Town North — Project Development Plan
8. #16-01 Ridgeview Classical Charter School — Site Plan Advisory
Review
Member Torgerson declared a conflict on item #5 — New Belgium Brewery —
Overall Development Plan, File #1-95C.
Chairman Gavaldon declared a conflict on item #8 — Ridgeview Classical Charter
School — Site Plan Advisory Review, File #16-01.
0 Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent Agenda item 3.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 2
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Project: Modification of Standards — The Willow at
Rigden Farm, File #56-98M
Project Description: Request to modify two sections of the Land
Use Code for the Willow at Rigden Farm (Tract
D). The first is a request to reduce required
setback from non -arterial streets, and the other
is to modify the zero lot line setback
requirements.
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Hearina Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Troy Jones, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. He discussed the structure
plan and the zoning of the Rigden Farm area. He discussed the setback standards for
these zone districts. The residential setback for an arterial is 30 feet. For non -arterial
streets, the setbacks are dependent upon the zone district and other criteria. He
showed illustrations of different setbacks in order to provide visual images of those. He
discussed the motor court proposal that would centralize the garages into one area,
keeping the streetscape and areas between homes free of garages. Staff is
recommending approval of the requests for modification.
Vince Fredrickson, VTBS Architects, gave the applicant's presentation. The plan is for a
mixed -use development with a motor court, which will house the garages and parking
areas. The setback requirements are a result of this motor court and the arrangement of
the structures.
CITIZEN INPUT
Randall La Coco, resident of Dakota Ridge, stated his concern over the density of the
project and the effect that changed setbacks will have on the density. He stated concern
over the 'averaging' of dwelling unit numbers to meet zoning requirements at the ODP
stage. He added that the modification does not meet the intent of the Land Use Code
and it is detrimental to the public good. He asked the Board to deny the requests for
modification.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 3
Scott Griffin, representative of Rigden Farm, stated that the Dakota Ridge and
Stoneridge residents requested that larger lots back up against their developments. In
order to average these larger lots out, areas of about 10 dwelling units per acre had to
be used.
Member Carpenter asked if semi-public or semi -private space was considered
regarding these setback modification requests.
Planner Jones replied that a pedestrian -oriented street front is being promoted by the
request, Additionally, a variety of building materials is being used and the reduction in
setbacks allows the pedestrian to be closer to the structures which allows the
architectural styling to be viewed more readily. Thus, the detailing and design covenants
need to be somewhat stricter.
Member Torgerson asked if any elevations in the packet detailed the motor court.
Planner Jones replied that they did not but provided the Board with the copy he had.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that this rendering would not be final because the PDP has
not yet been submitted.
Planner Jones replied that there is no formal connection between the rendered
elevation and what the final elevations would be on the PDP submittal. He asked if it
would be appropriate for the Board to put conditions on an approval regarding the
variety of building materials, etc.
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, replied that conditions as per the drawings could be
used but worded conditions would be difficult to form and enforce.
Planner Jones stated that perhaps the condition could involve adhering to the general
aspects of the drawings, leaving staff or the Planning Director in charge of making that
decision.
Mr. Fredrickson replied that the drawings were based on the design standards for
Rigden Farm. He added that there are currently no changes planned for what is being
proposed.
Member Torgerson asked if the density on each parcel was identified at the ODP level
or if the developer decided where the shifts occurred. If it were the developer, is there
flexibility there anyway?
rI
L_j
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 4
Planner Jones replied that the developer has proposed 10 dwelling units per acre. They
could propose more or less and still be consistent with the ODP.
Member Torgerson stated that the issue of density was decided a while ago at the ODP
stage and is therefore outside this discussion. The lowest density could be 8 units per
acre and would therefore never be completely compatible with the 3 units per acre in
the Dakota Ridge area.
Member Bemth moved for approval of the modification request for the Willow at
Rigden Farm, File #56-98M, subject to the condition that maintenance access
easement be provided on the adjacent lot at the time of platting. In addition, with
respect to the Willow at Rigden Farm elevations by Slayt Construction, the
general overall standards are adhered to with staff having the final
recommendation on the final elevations.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter stated that she would support the motion but was concerned with
the analysis. Bringing the building closer does not advance the public interests. We
need to be very careful that the details and variations are present to make the structures
visually appealing when they are this close to the road.
Member Torgerson agreed that details are important but the plan advanced the
purposes of the standard better than compliance primarily because of the motor court
concept that will make the streets more pedestrian friendly.
Chairman Gavaldon stated concern of making changes to the standards without
substantial return to the community. He stated that this particular setback variance
works but not all similar requests would. He recommended strong performance
standards for developments requesting setback variations. He stated that he would
support the motion.
Member Meyer thanked Planner Jones for the visual images of the different setbacks.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 5
Project: Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25
Corridor Plan
Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for adoption
of the regional plan as an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ken Waido, Advance Planning, and Ben Herman, Clarion Associates, gave the
staff/consultant presentation. He gave an overview of the project and addressed the
implementation strategies. This is a regional plan involving six communities and two
counties as well as the Colorado Department of Transportation and the North Front
Range MPO. He went into detail about the transportation plan, open space issues, and
development plans. He also discussed the implementation strategies including plan
administration and financing. He stated that this plan is not meant to stimulate corridor
development but rather respond to development that has already been approved.
Citizen Input
Mike Byrne, former Fort Collins representative to the 1-25 Corridor Policy and Oversight
Committee, spoke about the rapid growth in our area and the urgent need to address
the resulting problems regionally. The 1-25 plan is a significant first step in greater
regional cooperation. We do not live in a homogenous society in terms of growth -
management views. He acknowledged the concern over transportation costs and
conservation issues. He stated that regional planning is not unique. Regional plans are
necessary to successfully deal with development and its consequences. This plan does
not eliminate uncertainty but it does lie out a plan for proceeding. The greatest risk is
that elected officials will pull back.
Kelley Olson, Fort Collins resident and former mayor, stated that this plan is not even
close to being ready for implementation and it is worse than no plan at all. The plan
encourages the worst kind of sprawl. The open space plan was basically an
afterthought and is incomplete. Building more roads in a high -growth area does not help
traffic congestion. He suggested killing the plan and sending the plan back to be
redesigned.
Nancy York, Fort Collins resident and member of the Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory
Board, stated that there are no benefits to this plan for the 'ordinary' citizen, particularly
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 6
when the transportation bill is to be paid by taxpayers. She stated that the mass transit
system is not developed in the plan and that the only evident plan is to widen and
construct more streets. We need to consider global warming, petroleum limits, and the
necessity to drive further because of sprawl. The proximity of housing to the road is a
concern because of noxious fumes emitted from vehicles. She added that there is not
an air quality evaluation on the plan.
Karen Wagner, a focus group member representing the Larimer County Environmental
Advisory Board, stated that the public process has been lacking and that there is still
time for a wider public dialogue. She questioned the vision and whether or not it would
duplicate the sprawling, interstate development that people coming here are attempting
to escape. She also questioned the adaptation of the plan to City Plan and the burden
on taxpayers.
Georgia Locker, member of the League of Women Voters of Larimer County, stated that
the design standards should be fine-tuned and that the open lands/natural areas policy
should be expanded before adoption. Regional planning is essential but adopting a plan
in which so many vital issues remain not addressed seems ill advised.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that having a framework and outline is better than having no
plan at all. Growth cannot be stopped without voting against it; it needs to be managed
appropriately and honestly. Though the plan may not address all issues thoroughly, it
does provide an outline to work with. The details will work out as the plan is
implemented. He encouraged looking at priorities during implementation. He stated that
having a plan is better than having no plan and it can be modified and adjusted to work.
Member Bemth responded to the citizen's comment that the public process was lacking.
He stated that anyone who wanted to be part of the process was certainly able to be
part of the process. It is true that some people just don't care. He agreed with Mr.
Olson, stating that he would rather have four -lane bike trails and two-lane road rather
than the opposite and that building more roads will not alleviate the growth issues. He
added that having a plan was a good start, however. Having a plan would provide
something from which ideas could deviate. Due to the sense of urgency, he stated his
support for the plan.
Member Carpenter stated that this was an incredible effort by many diverse groups with
different attitudes and beliefs. There needs to be follow-up work to this plan.
Communities with less -developed planning departments were introduced to some ideas
that they had perhaps not thought about previously. She stated that she would support
the plan because regional planning is critical to maintain a high quality of life for the
region.
• •
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 7
Member Torgerson stated his support of the plan. He stated that necessary
improvements could be made at the implementation stage. The staff that initiated this
are true visionaries — it was the first regional cooperation plan between this many
entities anywhere on the Front Range. He stated his support for the preservation of
future right-of-way for this transportation network and added that it is important that this
type of thing be placed on our Master Street Plan. There is a difference between
building roads and building parallel roadway systems so 1-25 can function as a freeway
and not the " "main street" for the Front Range. He stated his approval of the
transportation component of the plan. We've seen a lack of leadership from our State
Legislature in terms of regional growth; we've seen a lack of leadership on the part of
many surrounding towns as well. Though this plan may not address all concerns, it is a
start. He encouraged all speakers to remain involved in the implementation stages. It is
important for Fort Collins to allow for the future parallel road system to relieve
congestion.
Member Meyer stated her agreement with Member Carpenter — the regional aspect of
the plan is critical. Fort Collins is no longer a city in the 'middle of nowhere, 'we need to
work with surrounding communities. Although this plan may have its faults, we need to
start somewhere and it will change.
Member Torgerson moved to recommend approval of the 1-25 Corridor Plan.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that this plan is trying to prevent future outcomes like those
of the T-REX plan in Denver, which is causing many businesses to relocate. It is
important to plan ahead to keep that from happening.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Project:
Project Description:
0 Recommendation:
New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development
Plan, File #1-95C
Request for an overall development plan on
approximately 49 acres. The property is
located at the northeast corner of Linden Street
and Buckingham Street and includes the
vacant property east to Lemay Avenue. The
parcel is zoned I — Industrial.
Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 8
Hearin Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. The request is for an
Overall Development Plan on 49 acres. Anticipated land uses include an expansion of
the brewery, a water treatment facility, industrial uses and a community building. All of
the uses are permitted in the Industrial zone district. The ODP also includes a potential
future rail spur. Alternative compliance is being sought to satisfy the street connection
standard. The standard would normally call for First, Second, and Third Streets to
extend into the site. Staff and the applicant are requesting that they not because this is
a large industrial site and not a neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval of the
ODP.
Angela Milewski, BHA Design, gave the applicant's presentation. She discussed New
Belgium Brewery's history and community involvement as it relates to the Land Use
Code and City Plan. She discussed the advanced recycling and reusing techniques
used by the brewery. In terms of timing, it is anticipated that the water treatment facility
would be developed first, followed by the west end of the brewery expansion, and finally
the community center. The access points meet or exceed the Land Use Code
requirements. The request for alternative compliance regarding the street connections
would keep traffic from using the residential streets to directly access the brewery. The
possible rail spur would serve both New Belgium and the City of Fort Collins Streets
Facility. New Belgium has and will continue to work closely with neighbors as this
project continues.
Citizen Input
Betty Aragon, 140 Second Street spoke on behalf of the Buckingham neighborhood.
She stated opposition to the proposal adding that the Buckingham and Andersonville
neighborhoods are two of the oldest in Fort Collins yet they house two breweries and a
nightclub. She stated that the expansion is not compatible to the neighborhoods and will
affect their quality of life. Ms. Aragon presented a petition against the project signed by
neighbors.
Ruben Ramirez, former Buckingham resident, stated concern over the heavy equipment
trucks travelling the neighborhood streets. He asked how many Hispanic local residents
had been hired at New Belgium.
Cherde Willie, Buckingham resident, stated that the brewery is a wonderful company for
Fort Collins. She stated concern about the landscaping and added that she would like a
landscaped buffer zone between the new production part of the facility. She also stated
concern over the truck traffic.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 9
Kim Jordan, CEO and Owner of New Belgium Brewery stated that New Belgium
Brewing Company does not 'look down' on the residents of the neighborhoods. New
Belgium has tried to do the best thing possible with regard to traffic.
Ms. Milewski stated that a sign is posted in the Brewery instructing trucks not to travel
down Buckingham, First, Second, or Third Streets. In terms of landscaping, definite
plans have not yet been made but the Land Use Code criteria will be met or exceeded.
Member Bemth asked Ms. Aragon why she had supported the Wal-Mart coming into the
neighborhood but opposes this project.
Ms. Aragon replied that she supported the Wal-Mart because it will provide convenience
and affordable shopping to the North side of town. One of the Wal-Mart developers, Mr.
Goldberg, donated $90,000 to a Hispanic heritage museum. She added that the
brewery has not contributed to the neighborhood despite the fact that they may try to be
a good neighbor. The breweries and nightclub are not positive images for the children of
the neighbors.
Chairman Gavaldon asked about the smell issue and possible mitigation.
Planner Shepard replied that there is no requirement for mitigation at the ODP level.
Technologies and Code standards exist but applying them to a brewery is not yet
certain.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if any of the development was in the floodplain.
Planner Shepard replied that none of the property is in the 100-year floodplain but a
portion of the property is in the 500-year floodplain. Portions of the water treatment
facility have to be out of the 500-year floodplain.
Member Carpenter moved for approval of the alternative compliance request for
New Belgium Brewery ODP, File #1-95C.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that certain criteria will be followed for the PDP application
and that New Belgium will have to work closely with the neighbors to come up with a
compatible plan. He stated that he would support the ODP and encouraged the
neighbors to stay involved through the PDP process.
9 The motion was approved 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 10
Member Meyer moved for approval of the New Belgium Brewery Overall
Development Plan, File #1-95C.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Project: Old Town North, Overall Development Plan,
File #28-99B
Project Description: Request for an overall development plan for a
45-acre mixed use development. The site is
located northeast of the intersection of Vine
Drive and College Avenue. The site is in the
Community Commercial — North College
(CCN) zone district.
Recommendation: Approval
Project:
Old Town North, Project Development Plan,
File #28-99A
Project Description: Request for a project development plan for a
30-acre mixed use development. This includes
138 single family detached homes, 88 single
family attached homes, and 30 mixed use
dwellings; 10% of the units will meet the City of
Fort Collins requirements for affordable
housing. Request for three modifications of
standards — one to reduce the minimum side
yard setback, one to reduce the required
setback along non -arterial streets, and one to
allow home occupations to be located in rear
yard detached accessory buildings.
Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 11
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Troy Jones, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. The Overall Development
Plan and Project Development Plan were combined into one staff presentation. He
discussed the site including the riparian forest that has been identified on the City's
Natural Habitats and Features Inventory as substantial and worth preserving. There are
two alternative compliance requests as part of this application. One is for connectivity to
the arterial where a pedestrian/bicycle connection would be made rather than a required
street connection. This alternative compliance has been recommended by staff in order
to decrease the number of bridge crossings over the channel in the floodplain area. The
second issue for alternative compliance involves decreasing street connections to
lessen the impact on the riparian natural area.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if the ODP density has any effect on the PDP.
Planner Jones replied that the zoning of the property (CCN) requires that the property
be developed at least 5 dwelling units per acre and there is no stated maximum. The
project is proposing 5.5 dwelling units per acre.
The Project Development Plan includes a modification request for setbacks required
from a non -arterial street. The second modification request is for the zero lot line
standard. The applicant would like a use easement between houses, allowing the entire
8-foot yard side yard to be used for each house rather than four feet per house. The
applicant is also asking for a modification request to allow home occupations in
detached garages. Staff recommends approval of the ODP, the alternative compliance
requests within the ODP, the PDP, and the modification requests within the PDP.
Monica Sweer, Old Town North LLC, gave the applicant's presentation. She discussed
the project's goals: to meet an affordable housing, to provide an infill project, and to
meet a new urbanism land planning concept that facilitates a greater sense of
community.
Russ Lee, BHA Design, discussed the site planning and landscape architecture of the
project.
Jim Martel, representing the applicant, discussed the alternative compliance and
modification requests noting that these requests must meet or exceed the standards of
the Land Use Code. He stated that skepticism about affordable housing should be
decreased as it is a very important need for the community. The applicant is requesting
the home occupation variance on the entire project.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21,2001
Page 12
Citizen Input
Dan Nardheuse, 6132 Polaris Drive, stated his approval and support for the affordable
housing project.
Chairman Gavaldon asked about the home occupation variance being for the entire
project.
Planner Jones replied that the Staff Report does allow the variance for the entire
project.
Chairman Gavaldon asked about the new Staff Report distributed at the meeting.
Planner Jones replied that the modification request needed to be changed to the side
yard setback rather than the front yard setback — it was a misunderstanding between
staff and the applicant.
Member Carpenter asked if every home in the area could have a home occupation.
Planner Jones replied that they could if parking requirements could be satisfied. The
parking requirement would be for adequate off-street parking which would meet the
needs of the home occupation.
Member Carpenter asked if there would be a mix of separate dwelling units and home
occupations or just home occupation.
Planner Jones replied that as the units are sold, the buyer will have the option to have
nothing, a carriage unit, or home occupation, above the garage.
Ms. Sweer stated that all the homes are allowed to have a home occupation. The
challenge is that a detached garage or accessory unit requires special permission to
have a home occupation. Staff suggested seeking this modification for the entire site to
serve future homeowners in the community and to decrease the number of future
modification requests.
Member Carpenter asked if second dwelling units would be allowed above the garages
or just home occupations.
Ms. Sweer replied that it would just be home occupations and that second dwelling units
would be difficult to have above the detached garages because separate water and
sewer taps would be required.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 13
Member Torgerson asked if there was a specific density requested in the C DP. if so,
that would preclude second dwelling units from being added.
Planner Jones stated that a major amendment would be required to change the specific
density.
Member Torgerson stated that if the ODP were approved as proposed, adding second
dwelling units would not be an option.
Mr. Lee stated that the gross density of the project, on the PDP level, is 7 units per acre.
Member Torgerson and Mr. Lee agreed that a range of density should be stated rather
than a speck number for the ODP, thus allowing second dwelling units in the future.
Planner Jones stated that the range of density should be from 5.5 to 11 units per acre
for the ODP in order to allow second dwelling units above detached garages.
Member Bemth moved for approval of the Old Town North Overall Development
Plan, File #28-99B, and the requests for alternative compliance. The density will
be changed to a range from 5.5 to 11 units per acre.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of the request for modification to Land
Use Code Article 3.5.2(D)(2) for the Old Town North Project Development Plan,
File #28-99A.
Member Bemth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of the request for modification to Land
Use Code Article 3.5.2(D)(3) for the Old Town North Project Development Plan,
File #28-99A.
Member Bemth seconded the motion.
I* Member Carpenter referred to Mr. Martel's comment about the City approving setbacks.
She stated that setbacks are approved when they meet the Code equally well or better
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 14
than a compliant setback. She added that the issue of two sewer and water taps for
carriage houses should be addressed because it would help affordable housing.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of the request for modification to Land
Use Code Article 3.8.3(1) for the Old Town North Project Development Plan, File
#28-99A.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that having affordable housing allowing home occupations
might present a conflict. He stated that he would support the motion.
Member Torgerson stated that the request was not made based on affordable housing
but that it would not be detrimental to the public good.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that he still struggled with the affordability of allowing home
occupations.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Old Town North Project Development
Plan, File #28-09A.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Project: Ridgeview Classical Charter School — Site Plan
Advisory Review, File #16-01
Project Description: Request to convert an existing church building,
located at the southeast comer of Lemay
Avenue and Stewart Street, into a charter
school. The plan includes a remodel of the
interior of the building, and an addition of
12,133 square feet along the Lemay Avenue
frontage.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 15
Recommendation: Staff has no recommendation for this project
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Brian Grubb, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. He opted to allow the
applicant to give the presentation due to the relatively small amount of information that
has been received by the staff.
Jeanie Fielding, with the architectural and engineering firm that is representing
Ridgeview Classical Schools. The site will be shared with the church until the church
has completed its new facility and will then be completely converted to the school. The
first phase includes a limited remodel of some of the existing church facilities, and the
installation of temporaries that will be used until the summer of 2002 when the church
will vacate the facility. The school is Kindergarten through 11t' grade and has about 360
students enrolled. The addition to the church building is the second phase. The third
phase will be remodeled with the rest of the existing church facility as the church moves
out. Parking is adequate at this time, both during the week and weekends. The drop-off
loop will have little impact on the neighborhood.
Kim Miller, member of the Ridgeview Classical School Board of Directors, spoke about
some of the school's programs and uses.
Planner Grubb stated that the Board was not provided with a recommendation because
of some outstanding issues. The first issue is that there is not yet a transportation
impact study. The IGA with Poudre School District states that the School District will
address it's own transportation impacts, thus requiring a Traffic Impact Study. The
proposed drop-off situation may not be what is going to actually occur; a TIS could also
determine this. The drainage and detention issue has also not been adequately
addressed. There is also concern about not having enough open and playground area
for the students. The Board has 30 days to comment on the site plan as per state
statute; the end of that 30 days is today at midnight. The options are to comment or
request a hearing in front of the School Board.
Shirley Christian, resident of the Stonehenge neighborhood, stated that the plans for the
school facility are so incomplete that there is no way to tell for certain how it will look.
Her concerns include the condensed timeline for the project and the fact that the budget
is not sufficient enough to meet certain City goals, including a TIS, landscaping plan,
and detailed design plan.
Leonard Smith, resident of the area, stated his support for the school.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 16
David Kloyd, Stewart Professional Park, stated concern over the parking area between
the property and Stewart Professional Park. He also stated concern over the traffic
impacts.
Member Carpenter asked if staff believes there is not enough information to comment,
and can they request a hearing before the School Board.
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Board could comment before
midnight or request a hearing before the School Board.
Ms. Fielding gave the applicant's rebuttal. She stated that as the new design drawings
get completed, they would share those with the Board and the City. She added that the
stormwater and detention pond issues would be taken care of as the process continues.
The playground will be in the last phase of development since they will not have access
to develop the site while it is being shared with the church. She stated that the
landscaping requirements have been met for the most part and that the parking issues
have already been considered.
Ms. Miller stated that the school would be appropriated funds from the School District on
July 1$`. Also, they wanted to get the facility ready for school to start on September 4t'.
Members Meyer, Bemth, and Carpenter stated that there was not enough information to
make any kind of comment on the project.
Member Torgerson stated that denial could be recommended based on the lack of
information.
Mr. Eckman stated that the motion might not be denial but more a comment that the
project should not be built due to the fact that it is not within the purview of the Board to
deny the project.
Member Carpenter stated that she was uncomfortable with saying the project shouldn't
be built because there isn't enough information to even say that.
Planning Director Gloss stated that specific concerns have arisen including the lack of a
TIS, inadequate parking and drop-off, inadequate detention and drainage, inadequate
playground space, inadequate landscaping, and no elevation drawings. He stated that
these specific comments could be offered to the governing body of the charter school.
Mr. Eckman stated that these comments need to be made by midnight and that the
Board can then invite a response to the comments. Following the response, the Board
then has a right to request a hearing before the Poudre R-1 Board of Education.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 17
Member Meyer moved that comments include the missing TIS, the pick-up and
drop-off concerns, the inadequate drainage, playground space, and landscaping,
and parking concerns.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board should now allow the governing board of the school
to respond either this evening or at the next meeting.
Ms. Miller stated that they would like to respond this evening.
Ms. Fielding stated that they have spoken with Eric Bracke, Streets Department, and he
would not require a TIS if the school could outline the schedule of the drop-off and
parking requirements. Also, Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater department has analyzed
the drainage plan. As the size of the new facility is determined, a drainage report will be
completed in-house. She stated that quantities of landscaping meet the standards. The
first phase, involving interior remodel and temporary buildings does not usually come
before the City. The second phase, for which design has not yet been completed, would
be the point at which the proposal is usually submitted. She stated that an additional
submittal could be done at phase two in order to address concerns.
Ms. Miller stated that parent volunteers would help with parking lot management and a
playground would be added during the second year. She added that the school does
want to work with neighbors and the addition will be complimentary to the existing
building.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board has now heard the response to their comments
according to Colorado Revised Statute 22.32.124(1.5). Now, if the Board is not satisfied
with the response, they may request a hearing before the Board of Education regarding
the plan. This hearing must occur within 30 days of being requested. After that hearing,
the charter school may proceed with its site development plan unless the Board of
Education passes a resolution prohibiting it from happening. He added that the State
Statute regarding public buildings does not apply in this case because the school would
not be considered a public building.
Member Torgerson asked the applicant if the school would be considered a public
building.
Ms. Miller replied that it is not a public building, it is a charter school and falls under the
original statute discussed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2001
Page 18
Planner Grubb stated that Eric Bracke determined that a TIS is needed with emphasis
placed on circulation and drop-off. He added that the phasing needs to be seen in plan
form. A feasibility analysis has not even been completed.
Member Meyer stated that she cannot make any statements without being able to see
anything.
Member Meyer moved to request a hearing before the Poudre School Board of
Education regarding the plan.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Bemth stated that there is no reason to treat a charter school differently than
private developer and he would support the motion.
Member Torgerson stated that he too would support the motion. He is a supporter of
charter schools but cannot understand treating them differently than any other
developer.
The motion was approved 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m