Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/07/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Smith, Fries, Schmidt, Rollins, Stockover and Lingle. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Sommer and Deines Citizen participation: None. Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. PZ06-18 Easement Dedication 2. PZO6-19 Easement Dedication 3. PZ06-20 Easement Dedication 4. PZ06-21 Easement Dedication 5. PZO6-22 Easement Dedication 6. PZ06-23 Easement Dedication 7. PZO6-24 Easement Dedication 8. #56-98AM Rigden Farm 131h Filing (Pulled: Schmidt) 9. #33-01 N Plank PLD/PD Annexation and Zoning 10. #31-06 Plank PLD/PD Annexation and Zoning Discussion Items: 11. #28-06 Elementary School at Ridgewood Hills — Site Plan Advisory Review Member Fries moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item 8, Rigden Farm 131h Filing, which was pulled by Member Schmidt for discussion. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Project: Rigden Farm, 13'h Filing (New Dawn Assisted Living), Project Development Plan, #56-98 Project Description: This is a request for a long-term care (assisted living) facility on 2.5 acres. The facility will provide care for all forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. There will be a total of approximately 29,000 square feet of floor area in three 1-story buildings (9,538 square feet each with 16 private rooms). The maximum height of the buildings will be 22.5 feet (excluding chimneys). A total of 22 parking spaces will be provided on the site. The property is located at the southeast corner of Limon Drive and Iowa Drive. Kansas Drive will form the east property line and a single point of vehicular access to the site will be from the street. The property is in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Approval. Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Schmidt requested more detail regarding the perimeter fencing City Planner, Steve Olt, referred to the site plan. He stated that there are streets on three sides of the development; Iowa Drive on the west side, Limon Drive along the north side, and Kansas Drive along the east side of the project. There will be a perimeter fence around the entire three -building complex. It will face the three streets. In this particular case, the perimeter fence sets back substantially from Kansas Drive, with landscaping just inside it. The perimeter fence continues along the back of the sidewalk on both Limon Drive and Iowa Drive. The fence is located internal to the sidewalk along the detention pond and follows the parking lot. Olt explained that the perimeter fence is proposed as a picket fence with posts that are six feet apart. Between the posts are one inch wide vertical pickets with a two inch gap in between . The total height of the fence is 3'10" from grade. The fence color is proposed as tan to light brown which would be consistent with the colors of the building. Applicant Eric Boe, 147 Halifax Road, Mahwah, NJ 07430, addressed the Board. He stated that he is the Chief Developmental Officer for New Dawn Assisted Living and that the perimeter fence is necessary due to the fact that they serve Alzheimer's and Dementia residents who have a tendency to wander. He noted that the fence is the last means of defense from the residence buildings to the streets and that, even though the buildings have alarms and residents are never supposed to be outside unsupervised, the fence provides added security. The gate on this fence will have magnetic key pads, so residents cannot open it without knowing the combination. Member Schmidt understood the purpose for having the fence, but was concerned, especially along Limon Drive, that such narrow spacing between the pickets would give the visual impression of a solid wall to someone on the road. She added that the applicant had done a really nice job with the landscaping and everything inside and around the buildings and thought the project would be very attractive for the residents. She was concerned about the fence looking like a solid wall. Member Schmidt stated that she had driven around town measuring fences and felt that a similar example was Woodward Governor on Lemay Avenue. This company has a fence that exists along the entire perimeter of the property, right along the sidewalk and along lengthy stretches of roadway. She stated that the fence has''/2" pickets with 3.5" spacing in between. Applicant asked if the fencing was aluminum square pickets. Member Schmidt confirmed this. She also noted that the perimeter fencing behind Radio Shack in the Wal-Mart Plaza is 1" in diameter with 4" spacing in between and that the smallest spacing she saw with pickets was approximately 3" spacing. She preferred a different fence design that would help ensure that the attractiveness of the buildings would be preserved for outside viewers. Her understanding was that there really wasn't going to be any landscaping, with the exception of some deciduous trees, to break up the look of the fence along the roadways. Applicant stated that his company has done fifteen similar projects in New Jersey. He stated that neighbors have always liked the picket fence since it promotes a more residential feel. He was agreeable to switching to alternate fencing materials and style. His only concern was that they obtain approval for some kind of fence to enable them to keep residents from wandering. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 3 Member Schmidt stated that she didn't want to dictate the styling or the materials of the fence but requested that the picket spacing be changed so that the fence would appear to be open when looking at it head on. She thought 31/2" to 4" spacing with a 1" picket would accomplish this. The applicant was agreeable to the changes suggested. Opportunity for public comment was offered; however, there was none. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Rigden Farm, 13`h Filing (New Dawn Assisted Living) Project Development Plan #56-98 based on the facts and findings on page 8 of the staff report with the condition that the perimeter fence be redesigned to contain at least 31/2" to 4" spacing between the vertical pickets. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-1, with Member Smith voting nay. Project: Elementary School at Ridgewood Hills Site Plan Advisory Review, #28-06 Project Description: The Thompson School District requests a Site Plan Advisory Review of a proposed elementary school in the Ridgewood Hills neighborhood, located south of Trilby Road and west of South College Avenue. The school site is located at 7115 Avondale Road, on the south side of the existing Homestead Park. The property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, in which schools for elementary education are permitted uses. Staff Recommendation: Disapproval Hearino Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Associate Planner, Shelby Sommer, gave the staff presentation for this project. She stated that this was a request from the Thompson School District for a site plan advisory review for a new elementary school in the Ridgewood Hills Subdivision. A site plan advisory review is allowed pursuant to state statute and permits the City to review and comment on the project based on its location, character and extent. The school site is located directly south of the existing Homestead Park along Avondale Road, south of Trilby Road, and west of College Avenue. The school is positioned in the middle of the site. Avondale Road is located along the east side of the site. The site is organized with the parking and drop-off areas to the east of the building along Avondale, play areas to the west that will border the existing neighborhood greenbelt, and a bus turnaround loop along the northern property line adjacent to the park. Staff has determined that the location of the proposed school is acceptable. The school property is approximately 7.7 acres and features a 56,000 square foot, partial two-story building. The north wing of the building will be used for classrooms, with 0 and 5`h grade classrooms located on the second floor. Early Childhood Education, Kindergarten and 1st grade classrooms will be in a separate wing on the first floor. There will be a separate play area for the Early Childhood and Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 4 Kindergarten areas on the northern edge of the site, which will be fenced and separated from the bus loop. Building materials proposed consist primarily of brick, concrete and metal panels. It will feature natural colors including warm beige, light grays and blue and will be treated with graffiti repellant. The height of the building is approximately 30' 8" at the two story height. Sommer mentioned that the architect is present and would be providing more detail on this. The proposed landscaping is somewhat minimal. It does preserve the existing street trees along Avondale Road, with some new trees included along the play area. However, there is not much landscaping within the parking lot. As proposed, the parking lot features only one internal landscape island. There has been one additional island added per staff comments. The rest of the parking lot is proposed to include only striping. Foundation treatment along the building will be crusher fines mulch with steel edging. Based on the landscaping evaluation, staff is recommending that the Board disapprove the character portion of this proposal. A Transportation Impact Study was submitted for this project. It showed that the extent of the projected impacts of the school on the street system in the vicinity are acceptable. The site layout can accommodate the drop-off and pick-up activities of the school as proposed, with the drop off area for the parents, as well as the bus loop which will have four buses coming from the Registry Ridge Neighborhood. As well, an acceptable level of service can be achieved for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes as proposed. The only concern with the extent items of this proposal is the parking lot and the lack of the landscaping islands both from a character standpoint to shade and screen the parking lot, and from a traffic circulation standpoint to control the access. A neighborhood meeting was held for this project. The meeting summary was included in Board packets. Sommer mentioned that neighbors may be present and want to discuss their landscaping concerns. Site pictures were reviewed with Board Members showing project specifics. Sommer explained the location of the bus turn -around loop looking southwest. She showed the single family homes to the west and to the south of the site. The bus loop was shown again looking directly west, showing the park off to the right. The existing HomeStead Park to the north was identified. Sommer added that there is a trail existing in the park that will connect to the school site. Street trees and park landscaping along Avondale Road were shown. Looking from the South, trees along the street were shown and it was mentioned that the intent is to preserve these trees. Looking directly East, residential houses were shown that will be directly across the street. Sommer described the parking lot location. She also identified the neighborhood clubhouse that is located along Avondale Road. Member Fries wanted clarification on whether the Traffic Impact Study results would be impacted if the Board suggested additional landscaping in or around the parking area. Sommer responded that she did not believe this would impact the study results and added that an additional island in the parking lot would only improve the circulation. She noted that simply having striping in a parking lot can lead to poor circulation and problems. Member Fries asked for further explanation on the process related to this project since it wasn't a normal development review process. Sommer answered that there are two items in Colorado state law that guide this process, including: 1) A requirement which gives the Board the ability to review and comment on a new school site development plan. It authorizes the Board to request a public hearing with the School Board if the Board has concerns or issues with the proposed plan. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 5 2) A more general statute requirement that gives the Board the ability to approve or disapprove of the plan; however, if disapproved, this requirement allows the School Board to overrule the Board's disapproval if it does so by a 2/3 vote. Staff's recommendation on this project is that the Board disapprove the project, thus forcing the School Board into a 2/3 vote to overturn the decision. Staff is not requesting that the Board request a public hearing before the School Board, but Sommer noted that this is something available to the Board if they desired to do so. Jay Earl, Bond Administrator for the Thompson School District, addressed the Board and introduced Curtis Martin, from Bennett, Wagner & Grody Architects in Denver; Trisha Kroctsch, the civil engineer on the project; Mike Martin, the project manager; and Ron Taunt, Facilities Services Director of 19 years with the Thompson School District. He asked for further clarification on staffs concerns with the project. Sommer stated that staff would like to see landscape islands added to the parking lot to define the circulation route. She presented photos from various Poudre School District elementary schools that provided good examples of what staff was looking for. She added that parking lot perimeter landscaping and screening was another concern, especially along the southern edge of the parking lot. Staff's third concern, according to Sommer, was the foundation treatment. Earl provided explanation about the processes and procedures used by Thompson Valley School District staff when they develop projects. He stated that they went through a very long planning process for this school and made reference to the decision process they used during planning. He noted that islands were not added to the parking lot due to issues related to student visibility. They have found that the ability for their staff to be able to see students in the parking lot, and in the drop off area, is hindered when there are islands and bushes and shrubs placed throughout the parking lots. Line of site is the ruling factor for them. On the site plan, separate areas have been identified for parent drop-offs and the bus loop. There is a lot of traffic, both children and vehicles, in the parking lot. Earl stated that their experience has shown that the less obstruction to line of site the better. With regard to the foundation treatment around the building, Earl mentioned that there are additional maintenance requirements with strip irrigation systems. They get ripped up quite readily by elementary students in a mulch bed or similar types of landscape arrangements. But, Earl stated that they have found fairly good efficacy when using crusher fines mulch. With regard to the outside of the structure and the treatment around the foundation, Earl noted that the teachers have a primary interest in keeping the line of site open for security reasons. Their staff feels that adding a lot of bushes, materials and trees around the building is a hindrance to this. Another thing Earl noted as a concern with regard to this issue is the long term maintenance impacts additional landscaping would require. As a Bond Administrator, Earl explained that there is a hierarchy of needs that must be considered when determining where to spend dollars in projects. He added that they have a finite budget and must make decisions that make sense regarding health, safety and code compliance issues first. As well, he explained that items relating to ADA, the learning environment within the school, program needs, education specifications related to lighting, comfort, specialty needs adjacencies, etc., and building systems integrity and maintenance, all compete for funding which put architectural and site requirements pretty low on the priority list. Earl stated that it is his charge as a Bond Administrator to make decisions that provide the best value for students and, given where costing is going today, he believed that the landscaping portion of the project as proposed is pretty much set. He added that this does not preclude more landscaping from Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 6 being added at a later date and explained that there are several parent/teacher associations that fundraise for these types of projects throughout the District. Curtis Martin addressed the Board and stated that he was with Bennett, Wagner & Grody Architects from Denver, Colorado. He added that he was there to address any questions the Board may have related to the design of the Ridgewood Hills Elementary School. Just to summarize the project, he explained that it's a new elementary school that will accommodate K-5, as well as Early Childhood Education classrooms. The initial population is estimated at 400 students with the design accommodating future growth of 100 students. He stated that the building is roughly 54,000 square feet and is a two story school. He added that the site is only 7.2 acres which creates some planning difficulties since it is smaller than the typical site they are used to. Access to the site is limited to Avondale Road on the east end of the site, so site circulation is a very important aspect to the design. From the School District's standpoint, it is very important to have the bus drop off separated from the parent drop off for safety reasons. Therefore, the bus drop off was located on the north of the site along with the primary entrance for students during the morning and afternoon departure. He added that this area was separated from the parent drop off which is a little bit further south. The parent drive is a one-way access into the site. Parents will drop off their children in a queue along the drive aisle and, if they need to park, will continue into the parking lot. They will exit the site at the south end and head back onto Avondale Road. Martin stated that they wanted to keep the west end of the site open for views and keep it as a soft edge to the adjacent open space along the trail system in an effort to be sensitive to the neighbors they would be impacting. He added that they wanted to designate that space as play areas which would benefit from the southern exposure. Martin explained that the education wing runs in an east/west orientation and that one of the school district's motivations for this project was to have a lot of energy efficiencies incorporated into the design. Many high energy standards have been designed in this building, including capturing as much natural day lighting as possible, orienting classroom wings in an east/west direction, and adding a glass atrium in the main entry that captures views to the west and assists administrative staff in viewing and monitoring both the playground and the parent drop off areas on each end of the building. Martin explained that the south end of the school includes a gymnasium, music room and cafeteria wing which can be used at night for public functions. The north end of the building can be sectioned off and locked down to allow for this. The Kindergarten and Early Childhood Education wing faces onto the park. The art classroom and library face north looking out over the park. There is a two story classroom wing which is primarily to accommodate 2nd grade through 5th grade students. Martin stated that the proposed building materials are a combination of brick, concrete and metal panels which will help ensure a long life cycle for this building. He added that a combination of two colors of brick, a buff color and a light charcoal color, as well as two colors of metal panel will be used and will blend in the colors used within the region. He explained that they tried to use clean lines and smaller scales to help ensure that the school fit within the character of the neighborhood. Ron Taunt, Facilities Services Director of Thompson School District, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been with the school district for 19 years. He explained that they have removed all of the islands from their parking lots due to some close calls with children and cars. As well, this facilitates snow removal efforts which is important since this school district has not added any ground staff to the district since 1982. Taunt noted that he drove by Blevins Junior High School in Fort Collins and stated that this parking lot is almost identical to the one being proposed. There is very little landscaping; only four or five trees by the street, ten small bushes and that's about it. He added that there is nothing on the south side of the parking lot to screen it from the houses. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 7 Public Participation: Maria Reed, a resident of Ridgewood Hills, addressed the Board. She stated that she is a local realtor and that she has met with every person that lives around Jansen Drive, Avondale Road, Agate and Pritchett Court. She noted that 95% of people within the area are in favor of the school and the design. The other 5% don't have children and don't care one way or the other because it doesn't affect them personally. She explained that the design of the school is very complimentary to what has been used in their neighborhood and that there was a real need to have a more localized elementary school. Both Registry Ridge and Ridgewood Hills have been fighting for this for several years. Being a realtor, living in the City of Fort Collins, and having a daughter who attends Thompson School District, becomes very difficult at times. She felt that the project is important and needs to be done. She mentioned that one of the concerns that neighbors have brought up is the fear that parents will go around the drop off areas and start using close nearby cul-de-sacs as drop off zones. These neighbors would like to see the City post signs in those areas stating these are not through streets or student drop-off areas. They are worried that in the morning when people are trying to leave for work there might be some problems with double parking near their driveways. Another concern that has been expressed by neighbors whose backyards face north to the school, is that there are no trees, shrubs or fencing. As a community, the neighbors plan to bring this issue to the HOA to see if they can get cooperation from the school district to try to incorporate some more characteristic things that will compliment the school as well. One other potential item of concern is traffic, especially related to Avondale and Trilby Roads. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the size of the backyards for the houses located on Jansen Drive. Reed answered that these are not deep backyards. She mentioned that they have larger front yards so their houses are set back. She thought that some of them may only have an 18 or 20 foot depth in their backyard. Resident Castle, who lives at 508 Jansen Drive, addressed the Board. He explained that he lives on the southern border of the proposed property. He stated that he does not have any children, but does understand the need for this school to be in this community and accepts that. His major concern was with the proposed landscaping and fencing around the property. He noted that his property does not have a very big backyard and that he would be stepping out of his door and end up looking right into a parking lot. He wanted to see a plan that incorporates more appropriate landscaping to break up his view of the lot. He suggested that they add berms and additional trees to accomplish this. Resident Castle also had concern with the proposed fencing. He stated that it was his understanding that there was going to be a chain link fence put around the border and that it would be located only one foot from his fence. This causes him some concern related to maintenance for both fences, as well as access. He suggested that a larger distance in between the fences be considered and perhaps also a different type of fence. Chair Lingle asked for clarification on whether there are ordinance requirements that dictate how close one fence can be to another. Gloss stated that there are no fence separation requirements. Sommer noted that the fence has been a revolving issue that needs to be referred to the District. She stated that there are security concerns and an issue because the site plan doesn't reflect what the School District initially indicated related to fence location. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on how far the parking lot would be from the fence. Sommer stated that it would be about 60 to 70 feet from the fence. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 8 Member Schmidt asked for clarification on what would be planned for that area space. Will it be filled with native grasses or is it going to be maintained lawn area? Sommer answered that it would contain native grasses. Member Lingle requested to see photographs of other school sites that have been developed. Sommer provided photos of other elementary schools in the southern part of Fort Collins that had been built within the past 15 years. The first one, Johnson Elementary, had a really well defined island that separated the parking area from the drop off area. McGraw Elementary had the same configuration with a separation island that included landscaping. The edge of the parking lot also contained some landscaping, with single family homes backing up to the parking lot. Bacon Elementary, one of the newer schools, also included separation of the parking lot from the drop off area. There were also some pedestrian walkways to avoid some of the safety concerns mentioned earlier. Zach Elementary showed a similar set-up. Sommer mentioned that this type of configuration is a standard practice for the Poudre Schools to clearly define the drop off area from the parking area. Sommer also showed foundation plantings at the two newer elementary schools and noted that they are very simple and are kept low, but add a little bit of visual interest to the building rather than just steel edging and mulch. Member Rollins asked for clarification on the parking area and wondered if there was anything that would prevent someone from parking there and then simply driving off into the drop off area. Sommer answered that along the front row there is a painted island, but no barrier that would prevent someone from driving from the parking area into the drop-off area. Taunt stated to the Board that no matter what you do, no matter how you design a parking lot, you are not going to come up with ideal parking as well as ideal driving and drop off circulation. He added that in all of their elementary schools they have staff out directing traffic. Even with an island present, it is probable that parents would drive into the drop off area and stop and block traffic without someone telling them to move on. He also explained that this parking lot is small due to the size of the site, and adding an island would require them to lose valuable parking spaces. Member Schmidt asked for clarification on the project budget. Earl stated that the cost estimating for this project took place in 2004 and 2005. The estimate was a lump sum based on a cost per square foot basis. Efforts were made to anticipate all of the extras required for site work and landscaping. Earl noted that the budget dollars were established in a bond; however, the cost increases they have incurred since the last part of 2005 have been quite dramatic. Earl explained that some sources currently indicate that there has been as much as a 25% increase in costs for building structures. The result, according to Earl, is that they are able to fund approximately 70% of what's actually shown in the construction documents. He stated that their current estimate for this project is $171 dollars per square foot, and could rise even higher due to unseen costs related to additional site work. Drainage is an example of this due to the additional requirements they must meet for the ball fields, etc. As things stack up, priorities do not change, but the emphasis on where the dollars will be spent becomes much clearer. Board Member Fries asked whether the School District, if it had more money, would include substantially more landscaping and parking islands for this project? Earl answered that he was not at liberty to answer a hypothetical question without giving it some thought. He added that everyone wants to live in a neighborhood where there is harmony, but he added that a lot of added screening or landscaping around the site would remain problematic due to security and safety issues. It was mentioned that the parking islands shown in some of the Ft. Collins' examples did not appear to have many kinds of bushes. It appeared that the islands were primarily designed for directing traffic, not for decoration. There was discussion on whether a requirement stating that no bushes Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 9 could be planted that would grow over two feet would satisfy the School District's safety concern regarding line of sight. Earl answered that this might address some of their concerns and agreed with Board Member Fries that there might be some middle ground related to this issue that both the City and the School District could agree on. Chair Lingle asked Attorney Eckman for clarification. The Board Member stated that the Board's purview on this project includes location, character and extent. Staffs recommendation is that they are in agreement with the location, that they are okay with the extent of project, essentially the density of development on the site, and that the site is adequate for what is being proposed. They are taking exception to the character. The Board Member asked that if the Board were to agree with staff s recommendation, would this be a blanket disapproval of the project or would the location and the extent proceed as approved with only the matter of character being disapproved? Attorney Eckman stated that the statute doesn't give much guidance on this issue. He stated that it directs the Board to look at character, location and extent and then, afterwards, to either approve or disapprove of the project. According to Eckman, the statute seems to contemplate a blanket approval, or blanket disapproval. It doesn't seem to contemplate an approval with conditions or anything to that effect. Attorney Eckman stated that this tends to polarize the parties because there is only one choice to make -- approve or disapprove the project. It was added that although there could be opportunity for dialogue and promises made by the School District might cause you to be persuaded to approve the project, if this is not forthcoming and you feel you cannot approve it, the Board is forced to disapprove the entire project. Then, the school can overrule the decision with at 2/3 vote. Member Schmidt asked for additional clarification on the school district statute. Attorney Eckman stated that the statute was Colorado Revised Statute 22-32-124. He explained that this statute gives the Board the authority only to review and comment upon a proposal, but not the ability to approve or disapprove. He added that it also gives the Board the ability to ask for a public hearing before the Thompson School District Board of Education and that this doesn't need a 2/3 vote. Member Schmidt discussed whether safety issues in the parking lot falls under any of the three categories the Board has purview over in this case. Attorney Eckman mentioned that the term "character' is so broad it could include just about anything. Chair Lingle posed the question as to whether the code contained any provision that would allow for a lack of funding or financial hardship to be the grounds for waiving development requirements. Gloss stated that there is nothing specific in the Land Use Code dealing with financial hardship Chair Lingle also questioned as to whether a project for a private use, like a daycare, would be required to go through a similar development review process as the school, and whether there would be similar concerns related to the perimeter and parking lot. Would the same requirements that staff is asking of this applicant, apply to a private applicant? Gloss confirmed this. He added that the City has definite circulation standards for parking lots and, if staff were evaluating this project as private development, a finding might have been made that this criteria was not met. Chair Lingle asked that in the case of private development where there is a disagreement, could the issue come to the Board as a modification of standards request? Gloss stated that the applicant could either choose to go with a modification request where the evidence would be weighed and a decision made or, alternatively, if the applicant didn't want to do this, a recommendation would be Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 10 made denying the application based on non compliance of that particular requirement of the Land Use Code. Member Schmidt asked if there was any kind of requirement that schools have enough parking to accommodate all teacher parking on the school site and whether putting in any kind of island would restrict this. Sommer answered that there are minimum parking requirements in the Land Use Code and that the proposed project does meet these minimum requirements. Her suggestion to the applicant as far as landscaping islands has been that they replace the areas that are already striped out with an actual island which would require no loss of any parking stalls. Member Rollins asked the applicant if the school district would be willing to switch the striped area to a raised concrete island without landscaping. The applicant answered that this would be acceptable. Member Rollins stated that this would help alleviate some of the safety concerns that have been discussed. They added that a certain amount of landscaping would be best, but that there are a lot of low lying, xeriscape-type juniper type bushes that could be located elsewhere on the site that could add some features without causing a line of site problem. There was some discussion about possibly tabling this item to give City staff and the School District time to work out some of the issues. This item could then be brought back to the Board at the next work session. It was mentioned that staff would need to check submission dates since statute language states that the failure of a commission to act within 60 days from the official submission shall be deemed as approval of the plan. Gloss stated that alternatively staff could check with the School District to see if they are willing to waive this requirement. Earl responded that the School District timelines are quite tight on this project. Attorney Eckman reported that there is not enough time to table the issue without a waiver. Hearing that no waiver would be forthcoming, it was explained that the Board would have to discuss and rule on this item during this meeting. Member Stockover asked about the timeline should the Board opt for requesting a public hearing. Attorney Eckman responded that there is no time deadline associated with that statute. Member Smith stated that he was not interested in tabling the item or having the Board disapprove the project. He hoped that discussion could continue and a compromise could be worked out. He stated that the School District was dealing in good faith and stated that the agreement would be on record through video tape. He suggested that they go through the issues, item by item, to try and reach agreement. Member Stockover mentioned that he continued to have concerns about the parking lot and thought there was room for improvement. He stated that there should be better access and that separation was important. He also mentioned that end caps should be added. He suggested that perhaps a professional was needed to review these items again. Applicant responded by explaining that hours and hours of planning have gone into the proposed plan. School district staff including Risk Management, Traffic, and the Director of Facility Services have had numerous meetings with the consultants, engineers and Architects to work out the design and address the issues. He added that they have spent a lot of time and money and would like to think they designed a good project. Applicant was concerned that there didn't seem to be a mechanism for negotiation in this case. He stated that the School District wants to do the right thing and find a way to come to agreement. He thought that from a cost standpoint, the School District could incorporate an island in the parking lot and that he would endeavor to do this. He thought that the proposed plan regarding shrubbery Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 11 around the building, screening and fencing, was pretty good and added that they had some pretty talented people who spent a lot of time on this. Member Lingle stated that we have two school districts in the City. We have one that meets or exceeds our requirements on a regular basis and thought there should be some discussion around why we should not hold the other school district to the same standard. Member Smith suggested that, for the most part, both school districts are held to the same standards; however, that there could have been some modification of standards done for some sites on a case by case basis. Member Stockover suggested that the Board continue dialogue with the applicant to try and reach agreement. It was added that the School Board in this case really has the final say. Member Lingle asked if the design standards should be waived for no real reason. We have a whole list of things that staff is recommending and, if this were a private development, would be an absolute requirement. It was mentioned that waiving the standards was not being suggested, only that conditions be determined that would result in the Board approving the project and agreement with the School District. Member Smith stated that if the applicant was willing to construct a concrete curb in the parking lot and add trees along the southern property line, the Board would approve the project. Member Rollins stated that it really does seem as though the southern properties are the most impacted because the others have some fields and are a longer distance from the school. A question was posed to staff on whether there were any other methods that would achieve the screening, but would have a minimal impact on what the School District would have to do. Sommer stated that there has already been some discussion around fencing and the fact that the chain link fence will not provide any visual screening. One option they would have is berming; however, this might create some issues related to site drainage which would have to be discussed with the civil engineer. Member Rollins asked for clarification on the height of the chain link fence. Sommer answered that the fence is 6 feet high. Member Rollins then asked if the fencing material, just for the section along the southern property line, could be different. Taunt answered that they tried to stay away from any type of wood fence because they dry out and just don't last. He suggested that the fence be set further in on the School District's property and then have some trees planted between the fence and the neighbors to the south. There was some concern that this would give kids a place to hide. But, if the fence were moved in enough from where the trees were planted so that there was room to mow, etc., applicant thought this would be an option. Member Schmidt asked whether this item would still have to go back to the School Board if it was approved by the City. Taunt answered that they would take the plan back to them out of courtesy to keep them updated on what was happening. He added that they would submit to them revised drawings showing the changes to the fence and the landscaping. Member Schmidt raised a concern that if the Board were to approve the plan, with the proposed changes, would there be any recourse for assuring these things are done. Are we approving what has been submitted or can we approve with conditions or on the basis of verbal agreement? Attorney Eckman answered that the Board does not have the option of adding conditions. However, it was mentioned that should the Board hear something that that is enough to persuade them to vote approval, then City staff could follow up with an exchange of letters or with whatever is needed to memorialize the understanding. Applicant responded that the School District would make every effort to meet what has been discussed and agreed to. He was unclear of a mechanism he could utilize to assure the Board that the items would be carried out, other than believing his word is his bond. As the Bond Administrator Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 12 for the Thompson School District and he takes this very seriously. Taunt mentioned that delays to the project impact them greater than anything else. He added that this costs them approximately $100,000 a month. Applicant reiterated that he could definitely agree to the parking lot island. He deferred the site issues to their Architect and Civil Engineer. Lingle stated there are five areas of concern that were identified and discussed. 1. Additional buffering landscaping along the south property lines. Applicant stated that in concept he agreed, but that everything was a matter of degree and he was unsure what would be reasonable or unreasonable from a costing standpoint. The applicant thought they definitely could commit to adding some trees along that boundary and that they could make some concessions with the fence to move it inside of those trees. There was some discussion regarding the type: of trees that would be required. Sommer answered that in her judgment Evergreen trees would be best and there should be a minimum of two or three of them along the southern edge. Member Lingle suggested that staff provide some additional specificity. If you have spruce trees in mind and they are six feet tall, how many of them do you want? If you have deciduous trees in mind, what's the caliper and the number of those trees? The more specific we can be, the easier it will be to come to an understanding and to determine whether they complied or not with the promises made. Applicant mentioned that the southern property line runs pretty far to the west. Sommer stated that the main issue is screening the parking area from the residents. Applicant stated that adding trees along the parking area would help them with two issues: 1) the irrigation line runs could be shorter; and 2) setting the fence back would become a design standard. He added that if parking lot screening was the issue, adding a handful of trees along the parking lot, was definitely something the Thompson School District could accomplish. Member Lingle recommended a minimum of four six-foot Evergreen trees. Applicant agreed to this. 2. Barrier between the parent drop off lane and the parking lot. Member Lingle stated that there appears to be agreement with some sort of raised curb, a minimum of five feet wide, which is the same width as the current striped area. Applicant agreed, after conferring with his Civil Engineer, that this could be accommodated. 3. Screening along the east side of the parking lot and the street with additional landscaping. Applicant stated that he had had some discussion with the HOA that currently owns the trees. He noted that the School District agreed to be diligent in keeping all trees alive that are not in the access road to the site. The applicant was uncertain as to whether any trees would be lost. He added that if more definition could be added to this item, he felt quite sure an agreement could be reached. Sommer clarified that the proposal contained only low shrubbery screening and that the City is asking for the addition of some trees, in between the existing ones, for additional screening. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 13 Applicant stated that the trees owned by the HOA are leafy trees and approximately ten feet tall. Member Lingle clarified that the request is for a second row of those types of trees. Applicant asked for clarification on whether there is drip irrigation in that area. Sommer confirmed this. There was some discussion on whether the goal was screening or shading since this would require a different kind of tree. Member Lingle stated that shading should be considered since there will be no interior parking lot landscaping done. It was suggested that canopy trees be added. Sommer asked if the canopy trees would replace the proposed shrubs or be in addition to the proposed shrubs. Martin stated that the proposed design contains about 80 shrubs along that edge to work with the existing trees along that frontage. Member Stockover asked for clarification on the type of trees that are in the frontage. Martin was unsure of the type. Member Stockover also asked for clarification on the mature height of the shrubs. Martin answered that they are lower than four feet based on the District's recommendation. Applicant reiterated that he hoped all parties could compromise to somewhere in the middle and shared his concern regarding costs. It was suggested that there be a dollar for dollar replacement — reduce the shrubs to enable the applicant to plant four canopy trees in lieu of some of the shrubs. Applicant thought this was an excellent suggestion and was willing to add four deciduous canopy trees in the front along Avondale Road. 4. Interior parking lot landscaping. Chair Lingle stated that based on previous discussion it was noted that this was traded out for the additional canopy trees being planted along Avondale Road. 5. Foundation landscaping around the building. Applicant stated that with regard to the crusher fines and the strip along the school, he was not willing to make any concessions based on the fact that he had lengthy discussion with school staff, the maintenance group and others regarding long term maintenance issues. Generally speaking, Thompson Schools have concrete around the base of the schools to enable the doors to open around the whole school perimeter. It's a standard that cannot be conceded. Martin added that another reason for the crusher fines against the building is to ensure the structural stability of the foundation, following technical recommendations that plantings be kept ten feet or more from the perimeter of the building. Applicant stated that the School District would try to follow up with a letter that reflects the conversation that occurred and reviewed his understanding of the agreements. As well, he asked for clarification on fencing. Member Fries asked for further clarification on the fences that, under the current proposal, would be only a foot apart. Taunt answered that he would either want to put the school fence right up next to the neighbor's, or put an appropriate distance in between to allow for maintenance. Chair Lingle asked if the neighbor could spray and otherwise maintain his fence through the school's fence if it was built right up next to the neighbor's. Applicant agreed. Board Member Schmidt motioned that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Elementary School at Ridgewood Hills Site plan advisory review #28-06 based on the verbal commitments for changes that were agreed to by the School District Representative. Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 14 Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Member Schmidt commented that the rules that are used for school districts, even the charter schools, contain slightly different criteria than what is used on some of the other projects as far as strictly enforcing the Land Use Code. This member was glad that concessions could be made, thought the project was needed and added that, although we don't live in Loveland, this is an example where all of our tax dollars are funding the project in one way or the other and the funds should be allocated wisely. Other Business: Downtown Strategic Plan — Criteria for Additional Height Chief Planner, Ted Shepard, directed the presentation regarding the addition of a Minor Amendment to the Downtown Strategic Plan to introduce criteria by which a decision maker may consider a Request for Modification to increase the height of a building in two downtown sub -districts; namely, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center. Council believes downtown height maximums provide a degree of predictability, but flexibility is needed to reward superior design with additional height. City Council met on December 5, 2006--considered and adopted the downtown height maximums on a block -by - block basis for the two sub -districts. The addition of the Minor Amendment regarding height maximum would be placed in Section 2.2.3, Urban Design, of the Downtown Strategic Plan. This is the second time this Minor Amendment has been discussed at a Planning & Zoning Board meeting. Member Lingle asked if the City Council is aware of the Planning & Zoning Board opinions on the Minor Amendment. Shepard stated that he summarized the Planning & Zoning Board's 4-2 vote at their first presentation. Chief Planner Shepard will return to the City Council on December 19, 2007 for a second reading. Staff does recommend adoption of the Resolution. The criteria would supplement Section 2.8 — Modification of Standard — of the Land Use Code. The seven criteria are parking, mixed -use, exterior materials, base industry, civic space, sustainability, and historic preservation. Chief Planner Shepard stated that a developer would have to meet just one of these criteria to be able to raise the building height, but noted that these criteria are not entitlements. This Minor Amendment supplements and works in conjunction with the modification process that is available to anyone. Attorney Eckman stated the fundamental standard that any development must not be detrimental to the public good still determines whether or not a development receives approval. For instance, just because a developer provides off-street parking within or below the building, they are not automatically entitled to add height to the building. Members discussed the feasibility of requiring a maximum height allowance, whether it is a strict footage maximum or a percentage maximum. Chair Lingle stated that a percentage could be applied so that in the lower blocks the percentage gain is proportionally lower than the higher blocks. That would keep the stepping appearance intact and would not necessitate a story -by -story evaluation. Chair Lingle felt that using 33% might be appropriate. Gloss indicated that staff does not fear going to a higher percentage if that's what the Planning & Zoning Board wants. He feels the burden is on the applicant to prove the development is not detrimental to the public good. Members Smith and Fries did not think that it was appropriate to add a specific number to the language. Member Schmidt reiterated her position that she felt the criteria would be perceived as an entitlement. She requested that language be inserted specifically stating that these are not entitlements. She further stated she felt the City has a modification plan in place, and that it would better serve the Planning & Zoning Board December 7, 2006 Page 15 community if they would just wait and see what kind of modifications are requested. If the code is too harsh or restrictive, then it might be time for a change. Chair Lingle stated that he preferred to forward something to City Council without a percentage, but if the Council wants a firm number, he thinks 33 percent is a good one. Chief Planner Shepard noted that staff will pass the views of the Planning & Zoning Board on to City Council. Staff will not give the City a maximum, but if the City requires one, staff feels that 33 percent is a reasonable number. Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. CCameron Gloss, Dire, or ✓f Dave Lingle, Soar"C air