Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/20/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Fries, Stockover, Rollins, Schmidt and Lingle. Members Smith and Meyer were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Daggett, Sommer, Olt, Wamhoff, Delaughter, Bracke and Deines. Citizen Participation: None Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 16 (Continued) and March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ06-04 — Right of Way Dedication. 3. #3-06 4900 South College Change of Use — Project Development Plan. 4. #8-06 Northern Colorado Academy of the Arts and Knowledge — Site Plan Advisory Review. 5. #10-06 Front Range Community College Parking Lot Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review. 6. #5-06 Front Porch Property, 1234 W. Prospect Change Of Use — Project Development Plan. 7. #7-06 Rocky Mountain Raptor Program — Overall Development Plan and Filing One — Project Development Plan. Discussion Agenda: 8. #15-05 Shields Street Lofts (515 South Shields) — Project Development Plan. 9. #24-OOC Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. 10. #16-01 B Ridgeview Classical School Revised Phase IV Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review. Member Schmidt pulled Item 3, 4900 South College Change of Use; Item 4, Northern Colorado Academy of the Arts and knowledge; and Item 5, Front Range Community College Parking Lot Expansion. Member Schmidt moved for approval of Consent Items --minutes of the continued February 16, 2006 meeting and March 16, 2006 as well as items number 2, 6 and 7. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 2 Project: 4900 South College Change of Use — Project Development Plan. Project Description: Request for a change of use for an existing building located at 4900 South College Avenue from office to a car rental facility and two other Type 1 permitted uses. The property is zoned C, Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Schmidt asked for clarification of the Type 1 permitted uses. Shelby Sommer, Associate Planner, showed a slide with the Type 1 permitted uses for the project. She clarified that the last item, Private and Public Schools, was an error made when the application was submitted. It is a Type 2 use that is being requested, but they are all permitted uses. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley and Associates, representing the developer informed the Board that most of the uses the developer is considering for reuse of the existing building are Type 1 uses. They do have a pending contract with Avis Rent A Cars. That is a Type 2 use and requires a hearing before the Board. The site is not changing. There will be a face lift to the west side of the building and an upgrade to the landscaping to bring it up to current standards. Some pedestrian connections will be added. Public Input None. Member Fries moved for approval of 4900 South College Change of Use, Project Development Plan. In support of his motion he would adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained on Pages 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Northern Colorado Academy of the Arts & Knowledge —Site Plan Advisory Review Project Description: Request to convert an existing office building at 4512 McMurray Avenue to a Charter School Facility. The property is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Schmidt stated that her concern on this item was the hours of operation and there had not been a traffic study assessing the impacts of both schools functioning at the same hour of the day. She thought that would be something that should be done before the project moves on. Terry Gorgerty, 73 Sioux Road, Lyons, Colorado, representing the applicant, replied that they have no intent of changing their schedule. What they were referring to is that there is no way to control what the School District does if they were to change their schedule. They could not sign an agreement that would not include the School District as a party to that. Their educational program is an hour longer than PSD currently has, so it is easy for them to straddle their times. They are willing to agree to that and put it in their policy and make the best of efforts to straddle their changes in the future Member Rollins asked about the on site circulation and how the pick-up and drop off of the students would occur. Mr. Gorgerty replied that the circulation is strictly one-way traffic flow. Member Rollins asked on what side of the building do the students enter. Mr. Gorgerty replied on the back side of the building which enters into their community room. Chair Lingle stated that the concern raised at work session was that if the 15-minute window is not honored or they become closer or on top of each other there would be a major problem that is not addressed in the traffic report. He asked if their traffic engineer modeled that scenario. Ann Bowers, traffic consultant for the applicant, stated that she conducted the traffic impact study and drafted the memorandum. She stated that they observed the operations at Kruse Elementary as they exist now and then looked at what their addition to the adjacent roadway system would be. She did focus on staggering because at that time the school informed her that they would be willing to do that to avoid conflicts. Per their observations with Kruse most traffic comes in off of Monte Carlo and they have almost that the same circulation plan as is proposed here-- a one-way circulation. The drop off went very smoothly and people exited onto McMurray. There was not a lot of congestion at the intersection of McMurray and Monte Carlo, but she did not look specifically at adding their traffic on top of the Kruse Elementary because she was under the impression that they were going to work on staggering. As it says in the memo it really is the peak 15 minutes prior to school opening and 15 minutes in the afternoon. Member Rollins asked if there would be students that would be dropped off on the south side of the building where there is parking. Ms. Bowers responded that was the plan and there would also be staff people out there to help with the loading and unloading, which is common in most elementary schools. She thought there should be only one lane in bound because two lanes would cause confusion. Member Rollins asked about the enrollment numbers and this school being the same size as Kruse Elementary. Ms. Bowers replied that Kruse is about 508 students and when the Northern Academy opens they are looking at 298 students and ultimately it would 550 maximum. They also have a 66% car pool commitment and are working with staff to increase that number. Member Fries asked why there could not be an agreement with Kruse and the Charter school on the start and stop time issue. Barrie Errington, 5310 Ward Road, Arvada, representing the Charter applicant, replied the issue is the Charter school is perfectly willing to agree to stagger the times but they can't control Kruse and force them to enter into an agreement. Public Input None. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 4 Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Northern Colorado Academy of the Arts and Knowledge Site Plan Advisory Review, #8-06 based on the location, character and extent with the condition that the school honor their commitment to have staggered starting times with the neighboring elementary school. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Rollins voting in the negative. Project: Front Range Community College Parking Lot Expansion— Site Plan Advisory Review, #10-06. Project Description: Request to pave and expand the existing gravel overflow parking lots and improve portions of the existing parking area at 4616 South Shields Street. The property is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Schmidt was unclear if someone from the Campus could address whether the neighborhood meeting minutes are considered binding as far as negotiations with the neighbors and if there was additional concern about the parking coming too close to the houses if they would be willing to do additional mitigation. Charlie Hager, JVA, Incorporated, 1319 Spruce Street, Boulder responded that they do consider the minutes as a binding agreement. In addition to what was in the minutes, they have involved Mr. Ellis (homeowner) with the staking and placement of the evergreen trees. In regards to any other mitigation, they have heard no requests. Jim Butzek, Campus CEO, added they have a long-standing working relationship with neighbors and have dealt with the homeowners to the east of them in the past. When there is a concern, the President of the HOA would come over to discuss their concerns. He also received an email from someone unable to attend the meeting. He responded to their questions and the individual was satisfied with the answers. Additionally, the HOA President picked up a copy of their bid documents, and they have not heard of any concerns. Chairperson Lingle was concerned with the homeowners to the east, and he wanted to make sure they had been adequately notified and their concerns addressed because the expansion would have only an eight foot landscape buffer between the new parking lot and their backyards. Mr. Butzek replied that they had made every attempt to contact the people and those that were concerned came forward. Presently, there is a gravel lot that creates a lot of dust. They are replacing that parking so the dust would be mitigated. There were some concerns about view and they have worked with the one homeowner by planting trees that would give him a type of barrier without eliminating his view. Public Input Michael Peterson, 4670 Westbury stated that he lives directly west of the entry to the parking lot. He was concerned about the impact on traffic at the entrance/exit of the parking lot onto South Shields. There is no control light at that exit. In the morning there is a lot of northbound traffic on South Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 5 Shields, and the most popular turn is a left turn across traffic going southbound which stacks up to 12 cars at a time. It is also compounded by fact that Westbury Drive links Harmony and Shields and there is a lot of cut -through traffic to avoid the light at Shields and Harmony. He wondered about the feasibility of placing a traffic control light or some other type of traffic control mechanism there to address the issues. End of Public Input Planner Sommer responded that the traffic study was waived for this project and the school has indicated they have not increased enrollment, they are just providing parking for the current students. Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer, added that they have looked at the intersection a number of times over the past few years and there is not sufficient traffic on Westbury or at the access to FRCC to justify a traffic signal. in addition to that, it is also too close to the intersection of Shields and Harmony. Member Schmidt asked if by paving, which will add more parking spaces, was there any anticipated increased traffic from that. Mr. Hager replied that there is an increase of spaces, primarily due to re - stripping the existing site. The work is being done to improve the access and safety, and increase handicapped parking spaces. There are also some vehicular and pedestrian conflicts that they are trying to correct. There should be no increase in traffic. Additionally, there is no more classroom space at FRCC; their classrooms are full from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The growth of the campus in the future will probably be at another site and location. Member Fries moved for approval of the FRCC Parking Lot Expansion, Site Plan Advisory Review, #10-06. In support of his motion he adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions as contained on page 5 of the staff report. Member Rollins seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Shields Street Lofts (515 South Shields Street) — Project Development Plan, #15-05 Project Description: Request to demolish the existing single family house at 515 South Shields Street and construct a new 3-story mixed -use building containing 5 two - bedroom dwelling units and 1,026 s.f. of commercial uses on 0.22 acre. There will be 12 vehicle parking spaces on -site. The property is located on the west side of South Shields Street between West Mulberry Street and West Myrtle Street. The property is zoned NCB — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff Member Olt gave the staff presentation. This is a City Council remand to the Planning and Zoning Board, based on Council's deliberation and decision on February 21, 2006. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 6 The Planning and Zoning Board on December 8, 2005 discussed the Shields Street Lofts Project Development Plan and at that hearing the discussion was based on revised plans that were submitted to the city based on a previous discussion before the Planning and Zoning Board in October 2005. The plan that was discussed on December 81h contained nine on site parking spaces under a second story deck on the west side of the proposed building. Those nine spaces met the required number of on site parking spaces for the proposed five 2-bedroom units in the project. There were no additional parking spaces for the 1,500 square feet of non-residential uses. The Land Use Code does not require any off-street parking spaces for the non-residential uses. There are nine parking spaces directly behind the building with on -site access from the alleyway to the north of the site off of South Shields Street. This development plan showed a 5-foot walkway on the second level of the west side of the building to provide access to the residential unit entries rather than what was previously shown in October as a 25-foot wide patio. After lengthy discussion on December 8`h, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Shields Street Lofts Project Development Plan based on the finding that the PDP was not compliant with Section 3.5.1 dealing with building and project compatibility set forth in the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Boards decision was appealed to City Council. As previously stated on February 21, 2006, City Council reviewed the appeal of the project and made the following findings of fact and conclusions: That the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Land Use Code in denying the Plan on the basis of Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code pertaining to size, height, bulk, mass, and scale because the building complies with Section 3.5.1(C) since it is similar in mass and scale to other structures on the same block upon which the building is proposed to be located. That the Plan complies with the parking requirements for the residential component of the Plan as those standards are set out in Section 3.2.2(K)(1) pertaining to residential parking requirements for the residential component of the Plan. The nine parking spaces provided in accordance with the Plan complies with the said section. The Board failed to adequately consider the parking impacts of the non-residential component of the Plan. In particular, the Board failed to properly interpret and apply Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code pertaining to project compatibility, for the following reasons: o Even though Section 3.2.2(K)(2) only sets forth a maximum number of parking spaces (and no minimum number of parking spaces): • Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code authorizes the approval of development projects only when they are compatible with the surrounding area. • The definition of "compatibility" in Section 5.1.2 specifically includes parking impacts as a component of compatibility. • Section 3.2.2(B) requires the parking system within the development to accommodate the movement of vehicles to and from surrounding areas safely and conveniently. • Section 3.5.1(J) authorizes the imposition of conditions to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Although subsection (J) contains a list of six possible conditions or restrictions that may be imposed in order to ensure compliance therewith, said list is not limited to those six issues, and the compatibility of parking with existing neighborhoods and uses is an additional appropriate topic for the imposition of a condition. Therefore, the Board, upon rehearing should consider the parking that would be reasonably Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 7 necessary for the non-residential component of the Plan in order to ensure project compatibility with the surrounding area and should impose a condition requiring the supply of such necessary parking. Since February 21", the applicant has submitted a revised plan for the Shields Street Lofts development. The proposal now is to construct a new 3-story mixed -use building containing five 2- bedroom units and 1,026 square feet of commercial uses The proposed changes between the previous plan denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 8, 2005 and the current plan as resubmitted are specifically as follows: • The number of dwelling units (5) remains the same but the square footage of the non- residential uses on the first floor has decreased from 1,446 to 1,026 square feet —it has decreased by 400 square feet. • The overall building height has been lowered from 33' 11 3/8" to 32' 8 11/16". The overall building height is reduced by 1' 3". • The depth of the building from front to back (east to west) has decreased from 40 feet to 35 feet. • The overall length of the building parallel to South Shields Street (north to south) does remain the same as previously shown. • Total square footage of the building has decreased from 6,677 to 6,257square feet. • The number of on -site parking spaces has increased on site from 9 to 12 spaces. At the previous Planning and Zoning Board hearing on December 8, 2005 there was also discussion about an alternative compliance plan relative to landscaping. The proposed landscape requirements onsite does not comply with Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot and Interior Landscaping. The landscape plan that has been submitted does not provide the required 6% interior landscaping in the parking space area or the driveway area. The applicant did submit an alternative compliance plan to address the parking lot interior landscaping and staff supported that relative to the alternative compliance requirement justification in Section 3.2.1(N) of the Land Use Code. After significant consideration of the Shields Street Lofts Project Development Plan and the Alternative Compliance Plan for the interior landscaping within the parking area; staff has determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Code and is recommending approval of both the Alternative Compliance Plan for landscaping and the Shields Street Lofts Project Development Plan. Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, gave the applicant presentation. He stated the project has gone through a series of both size reductions of the residential and the commercial components. As a part of that they have also added three parking spaces. The maximum proposed density is five 2-bedroom units with a requirement of 1.75 parking spaces per unit, which equates to 8.75 parking spaces and they are providing 9 for the residential. In addition, they are providing three parking spaces, the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for the commercial. Troy Jones, 223 North College Avenue, spoke on behalf of the applicant, about the alternative compliance for the landscape plan. He stated back in December 2005 there were two motions that evening, the first being alternative compliance. Previously, the drive aisle was to the west and the parking was a long the east and alternative compliance at that point was because they did not have any landscape islands. Now they do have a landscape island because their drive aisle has moved slightly over to the east and they have parking on both sides of their drive aisle. Member Stockover asked if there was a fence along the west side. Mr. Torgerson replied there was a wooden privacy fence. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 8 Public Input John Sanderson, 1012 Sunset Avenue (which is four homes east of the proposed development), stated that this project is still too large and not compatible with the neighborhood. He felt that we should not even be here based on the parking issue. In the October 201" Planning and Zoning Board meeting the applicant was told to do something about the lack of commercial parking on site. They came back to the December 8`" meeting and they have not done anything. They based their argument on the fact that there was no commercial parking required in the Land Use Code. The applicant came back with this response after several neighborhood meetings and a Planning and Zoning Board meeting where they heard loud objections about what is going on. They have done very little in their view to meet compatibility with their neighborhood. At the December 8, 2005 meeting where they came back with zero commercial parking spaces, the Board was advised by the Deputy City Attorney that the Board should not use parking as an issue upon which to reject the proposal. All the Board except two new members will remember that the five Board members present at the December meeting thought that this was a bad project. The whole neighborhood agrees that this project is not compatible with the neighborhood. The attorney told the Board they could not hang their hat on parking, so therefore it was denied on the basis of building mass and size During the appeal in February, we were able to convince City Council that parking is a compatibility issue. The same attorney, Mr. Eckman, publicly acknowledged that he was persuaded during the City Council meeting that parking really is an issue. Edie Thompson, 623 Del Norte Place (east of the proposed development), stated they are an old fashioned neighborhood. Ms. Thompson hopes the City will help them preserve their neighborhood as she believes the strength of the city lies in its neighborhoods. Andrew Warnock, 1012 Sunset Avenue, lives one-half block east of the proposed development. His concerns were primarily in the area of parking, traffic, and the associated problems with residents and their friends coming and going, garbage dumped by individuals not respectful of the neighbors. He's also concerned about the size of the development. Chris H. Johnson resides at 613 Armstrong Avenue. He's opposed to the project as he believes the additional traffic will negatively impact Elderhaus, 7-11, and Gilsdorf Garage. Seven-11 and Gilsdorf currently use the alleyway. If you add the project's residential traffic, the possibility exists they'll block emergency vehicles when needed. A more appropriate project would be one or two stories with four residential units. Andrew McMann resides at 605 Monte Vista. He wanted to thank the developer for taking the steps to try to improve the parking situation. He did, however, want to register his concern that no further neighborhood feedback was sought on the redesign since the February 2006 City Council meeting and tonight's meeting. Mark Johnson, owner of Gilsdorf Garage, also wanted to thank the developers for trying to improve the parking situation. Because the Planning & Zoning Board is only considering parking he'd like to point out that while the spaces meet code, in this neighborhood it will remain tight due to the lack of adjacent off street parking. Deliveries to 7-11 are made in the alleyway because of lack of space on their lot. That is the same entry residents will use for the new project. Also, Gilsdorf Garage will be placing a chain on that part of the lot that abuts the alley so that when they return on Monday morning they do not have to deal with weekend overflow. He also requests that the alley be marked "No Parking." Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 9 Amy Yackal Adams, 1008 Sunset, stated the area has already reached its maximum with regard to congestion and parking. It's becoming unsafe. She shared photos of the "crazy' parking that occurs around 7:30 each morning when she runs. Because one of the twelve parking spaces is dedicated to handicapped parking, there are basically only eleven spaces available. With further development, she believes the quality of the neighborhood will deteriorate. Rod Adams of 1008 Sunset wanted to add comments to what his wife has already stated. If residents of the new development cross Shields to park on Sunset and Mantz, they would be unsafe crossing Shields if they did not walk one-half block north to cross at the light at Shields & Mulberry. Ronnie Estell, 1012 Sunset, also wanted to speak to the safety theme. As the mother of a young child, she's had difficulty with her stroller at both the blinking yellow pedestrian marking and at the corner of Shields & Mulberry. Additionally, she's spoken to the employees of 7-11 who tell her there are not enough spaces for them on the store lot. They sometimes have to parked in timed parking and "play"the moving game. Their neighborhood is unique because of their camaraderie. She asked that the P&Z Board please help preserve the quality of the neighborhood as it exists today. Bill Mosely, 2817 Wakonda Drive, represents the American Baptist Church and the Board of Elderhaus. He expressed concerns about the two attractive parking areas —one at the church and the other at Elderhaus Day Care. Beyond the space there are issues of safely getting in and out of those spaces. With the potential for additional "foreign" vehicles, the time may have come where they will need to begin exclusive actions such as towing to insure that parking is available as needed. Sue Alee of 1939 Pioneer (1 block east of proposed development), wants to speak about the compatibility issue. The parking spaces proposed, while meeting minimum Code requirements, are not compatible with the parking needs of the surrounding neighborhood primarily because of the lack of off street parking. Given the lifestyles of the young adults/CSU students who are likely to be the renters, the nine spaces will be woefully lacking for the ten bedrooms and their visitors. It's unrealistic in addressing what's required. Please require that parking meet the needs of the situation. Doug Hahn, 612 Monte Vista, has lived in the neighborhood for thirteen years. The parking for this project is woefully inadequate. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood. The size of the project is setting a bad precedent and will diminish the quality of this wonderful neighborhood. Public Input Closed Mikal Torgerson spoke to the issues raised by the neighbors who he noted lived mostly east of the project and across Shields Street. Council's remand was the Board upon rehearing, should consider the parking that would be reasonably necessary for the non-residential component of the Plan in order to ensure project compatibility with the surrounding area. The three spaces dedicated to the commercial users meet maximum requirements of the Code for the approximate 1,000 square foot commercial portion. Troy Jones said the project is trying to embrace the spirit of City Plan. While he empathizes with the neighbor's concerns, he believes the conflict is in what City Plan asks for infill projects with newer products in a more urban way. He has seen evidence of that natural tension at the City Council and neighborhood meetings. It has to do with what City Plan hopes to accomplish and what the neighbors are expecting to see. He would, however, like to focus on the remand request for the non-residential parking —the project meets the maximum requirement with three spaces. If the project is allowed to proceed, he believes the neighbors will be pleasantly surprised in that it will not have the negative impact they envision. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 10 Member Fries asked if the handicapped space was in the original plan that went to City Council. Yes. Member Fries wondered if it was ADA compatible and would it meet Code. Torgerson noted the reason one of the residential units was on the ground level was to provide easy access for a disabled person. Chair Lingle wondered if, as Mr. Johnson suggested, parking control signage could be added in the alley and could be considered on a case -by -case basis. Director Gloss said that yes it was possible and had been used in other situations. Chair Lingle asked for clarification --City Council/City Attorney's Office direction when sending it back to the Board. How should the Board in their deliberation, look at allowances for parking when evaluating compatibility with the neighborhood? In the past there have been very stringent parking requirements for developments? Are they open to more than maximum parking requirements allowed or less then minimum in some cases? Director Gloss believes the Board has discretion in meeting the compatibility criterion. Even if a standard is met, if additional parking is needed to fulfill another standard (in this case compatibility;) then the Board is authorized to use its judgment. Attorney Daggett reminded the Board that at the time Council was looking at this appeal, there were three fewer parking spaces and that the application has since been modified. Chair Lingle stated that the Land Use Code provides predictability of what should be expected. He feels this kind of throws away that predictability. Member Schmidt stated that she felt the remand was to discuss the commercial parking places and not the residential. She asked Director Gloss if he agreed. Director Gloss replied that the focus is on the nonresidential parking. Member Schmidt asked the applicant if they had any idea about the type of commercial tenant that would rent that space. Applicant Torgerson replied that they didn't know, but it would obviously be a low impact business with low vehicular traffic. Member Fries moved to approve the Shield Street Lofts Project Development Plan. In support of his motion, he adopted the facts and findings and conclusions as contained on Page 15 of the Staff Report. Chair Lingle asked if that included the alternative landscape plan. Member Stockover suggested that the Board needed to clarify the motion on the staff recommendation by addressing the criteria for the alternative compliance on an analysis done on the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 of the Staff Report. Member Fries rescinded the original motion. Member Schmidt moved that the Board recommend approval of the Alternative Landscape Plan for the Shields Street Lofts based on the review criteria on page 8 of the Staff Report and that the proposed alternative accomplishes the purposes equally well or better to the plan that complies with this standard for the section. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 11 Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board finds that the parking for the nonresidential component of the plan is compatible with the surrounding area, and that, therefore, the Board approves the Shield Streets Lofts (515 South Shields Street) — Project Development Plan, #15-05 per the findings and facts and conclusions set forth on Page 15 of the Staff Report. Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Member Rollins stated she felt the additional three space should be adequate for this use. Member Schmidt stated that she felt the developer has made an effort to comply, and that the neighborhood will stay intact. She stated she was glad they have got a great neighborhood. Member Fries stated that he appreciated the citizens participating in this important part of the process. It appears the applicant has done what is required by the Code. Member Lingle added that he was glad the applicant came back with the three parking spaces. Project: Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #24-OOC Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 5.05 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road from MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to correspond to the requested zoning. Recommendation; Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation recommending denial of the request. Director Gloss reported that in 2001 the larger property, 55 acres and known as Spring Creek Farms, was rezoned from T, Transition to three different zone districts; E — Employment on the north end of the site, which is now the site of the new Police Administration Building; a balance on the site on the west side zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and on the east and south part of the site, MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The portion being talked about this evening is a piece of the MMN zoned portion. He stated that the Parkwood and Parkwood East neighborhoods is to the west, the Meadows East neighborhood is to the south, the developing Side Hill mixed density is immediately to the east and to the southeast is the Rigden Farm development. A predominant element is a Neighborhood Center that the Board approved that is anchored by a King Sooper's grocery store. Director Gloss showed site shots of the immediate area and discussed the Neighborhood Centers within the area and uses approved within those Centers. Director Gloss noted that an important part of the staff's analysis is that the NC Center is not yet complete for Rigden Farm. He showed a slide of the center and discussed retail opportunities that have yet to locate in that center. This was an important amenity that staff worked with the developer on at the time Rigden Farm Center was Master Planned. This creates a neighborhood amenity and staff feels that this is part of the focal point that is necessary for a Neighborhood Center to be successful. The applicant is making a case that the service area for this area is actually larger than one mile, that it is actually one and a half miles. In the Board's packet is a marketing analysis where Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 12 the applicant contends that there is an additional market that needs to be served by NC zoned land within this area, including the subject property. The one area that staff has struggled with is that there is a MMN policy in City Plan that says essentially that the Neighborhood Center should serve an area where residents don't have to cross an arterial street. This was cited by the applicant as part of their justification for the rezone. Director Gloss stated that staff's position is that the Neighborhood Center for King Sooper's is sized at the appropriate scale between 15 and 20 acres (which is targeted under City Plan to provide essential services to up to four neighborhoods.) It provides for daily needs and is clearly a situation where neighbors within close proximity can take a short trip by vehicle, by bicycle, or as a pedestrian. The applicant contends that it is a very difficult crossing at Timberline and Drake. Staff would concur with that because they are arterial streets with high volumes of traffic. That is an impediment, but it does not override the fact that there is a NC designated center that is fulfilling those needs and there is vacant land within the NC center) that needs to be built out and be part of the economic viability of that center. Allowing this use essentially reduces the viability of the Neighborhood Center at Rigden Farm. Director Gloss pointed out that there have been a couple of condition changes since 2001. The Board received a memorandum from Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services acknowledging the change in conditions due to the Police Services Building that is being built on the north end of the site. Additionally, since the time of the 2001 rezoning, other critical amenities have been built; i.e., the aforementioned King Sooper's site, and the Side Hill LMN Center. Director Gloss stated there are also other City Plan policies that apply to this rezoning application. There are specific statements in City Plan that the pattern of strip commercial development that we see on major arterials will not be repeated. We have considerable development along several major arterials, College Avenue being the most prominent, but we are trying to set a different pattern where the focus is on centers, not on development along arterials. From the staff's standpoint the Neighborhood Center at Rigden Farm provides that focal point, so it is not necessary to rezone at this point. Staff is recommending that the Board recommend that City Council deny the request to amend the Structure Plan. In conclusion, Director Gloss pointed out that the Board received a letter from a neighborhood resident, Peggy Greiss dated March 2nd She now wants to retract that letter from the record. She had objected to the rezone request but now wants to change her position. She is here this evening and wants to address the Board on that issue. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing the SC Investment Group, LLC, gave the applicant presentation. The first question is the reason they are requesting this rezoning. He would use the expert he brought with him who uses a mile and a half radius around these commercial centers in order to determine what the demand is. A very in-depth study found that there was a need for 180,000 square feet of retail within that mile and a half radius around Rigden Farm Center. The current zoning does not allow enough flexibility of uses to support a successful center. Applicant stated they are requesting a rezoning of approximately 5 acres of the 55 acre Spring Creek Farms MMN development. Their proposal is based on feedback they received from the neighborhood. They sent out approximately 1,000 letters to the neighbors to illicit their responses. There was one negative letter and that resident is here tonight to rescind that letter. They met at a regular neighborhood meeting, and there were also multiple meetings with neighborhood leaders as well. Applicant Sell pointed out on his aerial photo that the red circle is the mile and a half radius that he Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 13 used in this study to determine that need. The 180,000 square feet is based on a full build out of the Rigden Farm Center. It does not take into account the other two projects that Director Gloss mentioned at Side Hill and Timberline Center, an industrial site that does not offer the same kind of amenities you could have in an NC development. Applicant Sell stated the point that they are trying to make is that the current MMN zoning for commercial uses does not offer the opportunities to create the level of activity necessary for a successful commercial development. He highlighted the commercial uses in the existing MMN zoning district and stated that they were very limited. Applicant sell stated the first two slides (see Exhibit 1) shows the distance from the edge of the NC one -quarter mile, which is what we are typically willing to walk easily. The Policy is 2.1 in the MMN is that, "a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an average of about one -quarter mile from the edge of the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial Center to the edge of the MMN zone. All of the Police Facility 10 acres is outside of that. If we extend the NC across the intersection it easily captures all of the Police Facility and the combination of the two capture all of the MMN that has been zoned on all three quadrants of that interchange. Principle T-3 states "City transportation programs will promote the reduction of vehicle miles traveled through strategies that reduce trip generation and length and increase automobile occupancy." The residences highlighted in red (see Exhibit 1) are most likely to walk to this Center because the Power Trail goes right through the center. There is a one mile radius to the Scotch Pines and a one mile radius around the Lemay and Prospect Centers and that leaves a big area outside of the Rigden Farm one mile radius. Because someone was wise enough to put the trail in, it makes it convenient to step outside your back door and get on the trail and walk to a Neighborhood Center. This is an area that would be "pock -marked" with little shopping opportunities had this been LMN zoning and developed today. Expanding the NC across the busy intersection will 1) improve both pedestrian and vehicular safety; 2) improve pedestrian and vehicular access to shopping; 3) expand the choices available to walk-in customers; 4) increase the chances that a viable neighborhood retail center will succeed; 5) help fill the void for commercial demand. Member Schmidt asked if the recently approved Timberline Center was directly north of the Police Facility. Director Gloss replied that it is, but there is an intervening small outlot that is about 250 feet wide. Member Schmidt asked if the Timberline Center had restaurants. Member Schmidt asked if there were restaurants in the Rigden Farm Center. Director Gloss replied that there are two at the present time and a potential for more as the project builds out. Member Schmidt asked how you get across Drake on the Power Trail. Mr. Sell replied that there is a red flashing light and cars stop. Chair Lingle asked if 7.5 acres of MMN secondary uses of the total acreage is not enough of what they are looking for. Mr. Sell replied that it is not the acreage, it is the uses that are allowed. It is extremely limited as to what you can do in the MMN commercial. You can have a restaurant of about 1,400 s.f. and it has to be part of a mixed -use building. Director Gloss wanted to expand on Mr. Sells' comment. His stated objection was the list of permitted uses. If you go into the Land use Code under the MMN zone district and look at the list of permitted uses and as an Administrative Review it is quite limited. When you get into a Planning and Zoning Board Review you are allowed to have personal and business service shops, offices, financial Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 14 services, clinics, small veterinary clinics as well as a small restaurant. There are some commercial uses that are permitted and there is a wide range of services that could be provided. It sounds like the retail piece of it and the larger restaurants are the missing uses here that would not be permissible in the MMN even as a secondary use. Member Schmidt asked if this particular acreage gets rezoned, then are they still allowed 15% of the rest of the MMN zone for secondary uses. Mr. Sell replied yes. Public Input Peggy Greiss, 2254 Eastwood Drive, stated that she originally opposed the change in zoning for the Spring Creek Farms at the northwest corner of Timberline and Drake. She now believes it would be more advantageous to have commercial development at that location. After looking at what the city allowed to be built at Side Hill Development just north of Drake on the east side of Timberline, she is convinced that local property values would be better preserved by commercial development on this corner. If the renderings presented at the neighborhood meeting are the true representations of what is to be built on this property, she feels that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Considering what the city has let be built along Side Hill it would definitely increase property values, it would add to the looks, and it would keep that corner very upscale. She feels that walking across Timberline is very dangerous, and at times, when you cross the first half of the intersection, it is necessary to wait for two or three lights to cross the other three lanes. She feels that moving the NC Zone across makes more sense than trying to scatter little pockets of commercial through the residential neighborhood. End of Public Input Chair Lingle asked if the one -mile service area is supported by City Plan policies. Director Gloss replied that the one -mile service area is depicted in the City Plan. Member Fries asked if the concern is economic or safety. Does it really matter that an overlap exists? Director Gloss replied that the concern is basically economic. Rigden Farm has a fair amount of vacant ground, and they have committed to an incredible amenity package that goes above and beyond most neighborhood centers in Fort Collins. That developer had some assurances from the city that this was a neighborhood center that the city was going to focus on. From staff's perspective, the viability of the neighborhood center across the street does matter. By approving development nearby, that will diminish the viability of that center and create a negative impact for the community. Member Rollins asked if in the NC zone, if some of the larger, high turn -over restaurants were specifically put in the NC zone to generate a bigger area of interest and community flavor versus some of the smaller, lower scale restaurant allowed in the MMN zone? Director Gloss replied that was correct. It is the intent of the City Plan policy for NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, to provide a focal point for the neighborhood and to provide essential services. Therefore, the size dictated is 15 to 20 acres to encompass a grocery store/super market as the anchor because that's the type of service people use on a weekly or daily basis. Member Schmidt asked whether there was a process for an applicant to ask for some kind of modification to allow a non -permitted use; i.e., putting a restaurant in the MMN. Staff Member Gloss replied that the City does not have a use variance process. She asked if the City could possibly develop one. Director Gloss responded that the City changed from the Land Development Guidance system to the Land Use Code to make certain that uses are very specifically described in each zoning district. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 15 Member Schmidt questioned whether the staff truly feels that changing the zoning on the other side of the street would negatively impact the Rigden Farm development. Director Gloss responded that there were a combination of factors that led to their recommendation: (1) the potential of diminished value at Rigden Farm; (2) the City Plan was set up to have a different pattern of commercial development that is more concentrated; and (3) does the plan really need to be changed. Staff's conclusion was that the plan doesn't need to be changed. They disagree with the applicant's market study that says the service area should be larger. Member Fries stated that he would lean towards approving the rezoning since adequate public notice was provided and many of the concerns spelled out in the staff report are not being cited by the public. Member Schmidt questioned whether there was a need to change it because of the desired predictability. Chair Lingle thought that many people don't get involved because they don't feel directly impacted. He said it is staffs and the P&Z Board's responsibility to support and defend the planning policies and structure plan that have been adopted community -wide. While he feels that the developer's work is exemplary and top rate, he is concerned about what this rezoning would mean in the future with other similar kinds of situations. He felt obligated to support the City Plan as it stands and to not amend the Structure Plan. Member Fries moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment as the amendment would promote the public welfare and would be consistent with the vision, goals, principals, and policies of City Plan. I would not adopt (and find differently) the findings of facts and conclusions contained on page 8 of the Staff Report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Stockover stated that he could not support the motion because he is not convinced that another center across the street would really enhance service for many people. He also stated that the vision of the City Plan needs to play out. Member Schmidt stated that she would be more in favor of the project if the project to the north had not already been approved. The motion failed (1:4 with Rollins, Schmidt, Stockover & Lingle voting no.) Member Schmidt made a motion that we recommend denial of the Spring Creek Farms Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment based on the facts and findings in the staff report starting on page 7. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-1. Project: Ridgeview Classical School Revised Phase IV Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review - #16-01 b Project Description: Ridgeview Classical School requests a Site Plan Advisory Review to construct a two-story building addition to the existing Ridgeview Classical School facility located at 1800 South Lemay Avenue. The proposed 9,366 square foot addition will provide facilities for existing and future students. The band, music and orchestra practice rooms and Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 16 karate room are to be relocated into this addition to be more isolated for sound purposes. Site improvements include removal of asphalt and a modular building, installation of a new playground and grass area, and foundation plantings along the perimeter of the new addition. The property is zoned RL — Low Density Residential District. Recommendation: Approval Staff Member Sommer made the presentation on behalf of the City. Ridgeview Classical School requests a Site Plan Advisory Review to construct a two-story building addition to the existing Ridgeview Classical School facility located at 1800 South Lemay Avenue. The property is zoned RL — Low Density Residential District. This request for review from Ridgeview Classical School is submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board as a Site Plan Advisory Review pursuant to State Statute Section 22-32-124, which permits the City to review and comment on the proposal with respect to its location, character and extent. This property has been used for the Ridgeview Classical School since August 2001. In May 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board considered a similar addition to the Ridgeview Classical School building. The Planning and Zoning Board disapproved the application and requested a hearing before the Board of Education, primarily due to concerns about a parking agreement with the neighboring business park, and the intensiveness of the school on the site. The School Board agreed to hold this hearing, but soon after decided, with the City's permission, to place the request on hold until the parking issue between the Ridgeview Classical School and the Stuart Professional Park was resolved. At this time, both parties have entered into a lawsuit concerning the parking agreement, which will be resolved in the legal system, not with this Site Plan Advisory Review process. It has been determined that this revised proposal for an addition may now proceed under the Site Plan Advisory Review process. The existing building includes a total of 49,411 square feet of floor area. Total site area is 4.048 acres (176,331 square feet). In the RL Low Density Residential Zoning District, minimum lot area is three times the total floor area of the building. With the proposed 9,366 square feet addition, the lot area is exactly three times the total floor area of 58,777 square feet. The addition will require removal of one existing mature ash tree. The City Forester has approved the removal of this tree and will require three new replacement tress to be planted elsewhere on the site. The applicant has located the three new Ponderosa Pine trees along the southern edge of the property per a request at the neighborhood meeting. Foundation plantings are proposed along the northwest and western facades. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 27, 2006 at the Ridgeview School. There were approximately 20 people in attendance at this meeting. A summary of the key issues is included below, and a more detailed summary of all concerns is attached. • Significant concern over traffic problems at the intersection of Stuart and Lemay. • Concerns over the parking agreement between the school and the Stuart • Concern over the school's capacity and ability to enroll more students with the addition. • Concern over neighborhood compatibility, noise and the school's motives. The City has received one letter from an affected property owner, which is also attached. After reviewing the Ridgeview Classical School, Revised Phase IV Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review - #16-01 B, staff offers the following conclusions: Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 17 1. the location of the proposed Ridgeview Classical School Revised Phase IV Addition is appropriate; 2. the character of the proposed Ridgeview Classical School Revised Phase IV Addition is compatible with its surroundings and the existing building; and 3. the extent of the proposed Ridgeview Classical School Revised Phase IV Addition is appropriate because off-street parking demands are satisfied without relying on the shared parking agreement and the traffic flow in and around the site operates acceptably. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Ridgeview School, Revised Phase IV Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review - #16-01 B. The applicant was represented by Larry Trampe of Architectural Resource Group. He stated current enrollment is 649 students. By charter, the maximum allowed enrollment is 810 students. The proposed two-story, 9,366 square foot addition includes five classrooms, band, music, orchestra, and karate rooms. The music, band, and orchestra classes need to be more isolated from the other classes because of the sound. Currently, there are 151 parking stalls (including five handicapped), and no additional parking is planned. Domenic Carpine, Assistant Principal, played a video which clearly indicated the disturbance and disruption of concentration that occurs due to the band, music and orchestra classes being held in close proximity to the classrooms. Peggy Schunk, Vice President of the Board at Ridgeview Classical School spoke regarding school enrollment. Although one of the concerns of the neighbors and the business park is increased enrollment with this building addition, that is not the intent of the board. The intent is to give the students more room and quieter areas. Additionally, about five of the teachers do not have their own classrooms; therefore, they have no place to plan lessons, have privacy, use a telephone, or have access to their computers. Regarding enrollment, next year at year six, the school will be at 88% capacity for that building. Within the next ten years, they propose to get to 100%. To reach that, they are adding less than 100 students. These 100 extra students could be housed in the existing building, without the addition. Heidi Fennel, the Student Services Coordinator for special education at Ridgeview Classical School, spoke regarding the lack of space to teach students with learning disabilities. Currently, they have a designated office split into three sections that is always being used. They must resort to teaching at the Performing Arts Center and teaching in the hallways. This kind of arrangement can be challenging and the attention and focus of the students is compromised many times. The addition would provide assistance for the students who have learning disabilities and some extra support in the school's academic endeavors. Christie Nichols, is a teacher of elementary music at Ridgeview Classical School, and addressed issues with the modular trailer where music is taught. They have problems because the trailer is so narrow, it is impossible for all the students to see the board. Air conditioning and heating are also a problem. Domenic Carpine stated that the last proposal presented was denied due to a parking easement. He clarified that the new structure is not on the parking easement. Member Fries asked if students drive to school and if there is an open campus. Ms. Schunk responded that students may drive to school as long as they maintain a high grade average and don't Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 18 have discipline problems. If the parking becomes an issue at a later date, they may have to limit the driving. The campus is closed and students are not allowed to come and go during the day. Member Fries stated that no additional parking is proposed and questioned whether parking would be adequate in year ten. Ms. Schunk stated that currently less than ten students drive to school. Many high school students have siblings, so the parents drop off all children in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon. The Traffic Department has told them they have adequate parking for the square footage and number of students. Member Schmidt asked Staff Member Eric Bracke if that area is at Level Service C or D. Bracke responded that the intersection of Lemay and Stuart is within acceptable standards and currently operating at Level of Service C. The previous traffic issue was a pick-up/drop-off problem that would frequently back cars up on to Stuart and Lemay. The school has made significant changes in that drop-offs are moved through incredibly quickly. Ridgeview's traffic problems are minor compared to other schools. Member Rollins questioned when the school will need to go back for their charter, and, when that occurs, do they anticipate increasing enrollment and staying at their current location. Applicant Carpine responded that PDS granted them a five-year charter. Ms. Schunk stated that their intent is to educate the children very well and they anticipate being in this location another five or ten years. One of the options if they do grow would be to keep part of the school at this location and move part of the school somewhere else. Member Fries asked about start times. Ms. Schunk responded that, per the recommendation of the Traffic Department, the elementary students arrive 15 minutes earlier than the junior high and high school and leave 15 minutes earlier at the end of the day. She added that they have about 300 families and about one-third of those families have children in both schools. Member Schmidt asked Director Gloss if it was correct that if this Site Plan Advisory Review is approved tonight, then it is a final approval. If the P&Z Board does not approve it, it goes to the Poudre School Board. Director Gloss replied that was correct. Public Input Brian Leona, 323 South College Avenue, Suite 1, is the attorney for the office park that is Stuart Professional Park. He asked if he was correct in understanding that there will not be an attempt to increase enrollment beyond 780 students in the building following year ten. Ms. Schunk replied that was correct. Mr. Leona also asked if the applicant split the school and used this location as a high school, wouldn't that significantly impact parking. Johanna Schultz, 7101 Mount Nimbus Street, Wellington, Colorado, has been a school secretary at Ridgeview Classical School for the five years. She is also the junior athletic director, a 100-hour volunteer for the school, and a parent of a third grader at the school. She addressed the disruption of the noise and band classes and stated that she hoped the addition would be approved because it would benefit the students very positively. Wally Jacobson, 4107 Suncrest Drive, Fort Collins, is the father of a senior at Ridgeview. He supports the addition and believes it will improve the environment for the band students as well as all students subjected to those sounds and will provide much needed space for all students. He feels the addition would be an enhancement to an already excellent school. Suzanne Pate is a special education teacher and has three children that attend Ridgeview. She feels Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 19 it would be helpful to assist students with special needs in a more private individual room. She also thinks the addition would benefit students practicing their music and ensemble groups. Christie Nichols, 7027 Egyptian Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, spoke on behalf of Rebecca Fastfridle. Ms. Fastfridle is the music director and stated that activities in her room negatively impact the learning environment of a 5" grade class. In turn, her classroom is negatively affected by a physical education class below her room. She stated that this addition would significantly impact her classroom and the well being of the students as well as her own personal sanity. Kelly Miller, 7846 Lowden Court, is a junior at Ridgeview Classical Schools. She stated that when the band is practicing, they often play at a reduced sound level to reduce the noise. She believes the addition would be beneficial to the music students as well as the teachers. Soren Petersen, 1731 Norwood Lane, Fort Collins, Colorado, has attended Ridgeview for three years. He is also a band member. He and some other students wanted to start an ensemble. But, since there was no soundproof room, the idea was not accepted. That thwarted the ambition of the prospective ensemble members. It is also difficult to concentrate in the classrooms with all the adjacent noises. He believes the addition would help the students, the staff, and the school. End of Public Input Barrie Errington, 5310 Ward Road, Arvada, Colorado, representing the applicant, stated that Mrs. Schunk's speculations about what might happen in the future are personal. Future plans would need to be approved by the board and receive official approval by the school. Mr. Errington stated that the school does not know what they are going to do nor are they in a position to make any sort of commitments. Member Schmidt asked if the commitment to take down the garages and remove the mobile home is valid. Mr. Errington responded that those commitments are part of the plan that is pending approval. Member Schmidt asked what the timeframe was for the above items. Domenic Carpine stated that they hope to break ground by mid to late April and have the project completed by the start of school, September 5`h. At that time, the fences should be up, the trailer removed, grass planted, and the new sprinkler system will be in. Member Schmidt asked how the addition would be paid for. Barrie Errington responded that the school recently issued bonds through the Colorado Educational and Cultural Facilities Authority. The main part of the bond was used to purchase the building and a portion of the bond was set aside for this addition. The money is in the bank and ready to be used. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Ridgeview Classical Schools revised Phase IV Addition Site Plan Advisory Review based on the conclusions in the staff report on page six regarding location, character, and extent. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Planning & Zoning Board April 20, 2006 Page 20 Member Fries commented that he felt the lack of opposition indicated that the school has been good neighbors. Chair Lingle stated that this hearing was quite different than the last one, and he feels it speaks to the school's efforts to improve their relationship with the neighborhood and improve pick-up/drop-off times. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Brigitten