Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/29/2018Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Special Hearing March 29, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Shephard, Frickey, Tuttle, Wilkinson, Virata and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board March 29, 2018 Page 2 of 7 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: Moved to discussion Chair Schneider did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. One individual from the audience had Harmony Commons Lot 5 Child Care Center pulled from consent and moved to discussion. Discussion Agenda: 1. Harmony Commons Lot 5 Child Care Center – Pulled from consent Project Description: Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of the proposal. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no emails from citizens had been received since the packet was published. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of this project as a request to amend the approved final plan for a new child care facility with an emphasis that this is a Major Amendment because there is a final plan already on Harmony Commons Lot 5. Original approval was for a two-story medical office building. As proposed this item is for a one-story building that would be 12,142 square feet in size and 1.8 acres at the Northwest corner of Lady Moon Drive and Timberwood Drive, part of the Harmony Commons Shopping Center, which is part of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan 7th Amendment. Applicant was asked, but did not have a presentation. Public Input: Frank Bruster, business owner in Harmony Commons, is concerned about the shared parking and lack thereof. Dave Glisia, Owner, Famous Toastery, 3541 E. Harmony, is concerned about the parking and bike ability in the Harmony Commons area. There are not enough bike racks. This area is not bike or walk friendly. Staff Response: Planner Shepard gave the applicants representative an opportunity to address the Board. Kathy Mathis of TB Group addressed the circular drive for drop-off as being untrue based on the site map presented. There will be no circular drop-off. 67 parking spaces are planned based on the Land Use Code. This is double the parking. Planner Shepard presented a vicinity map showing the nearest neighborhood being less than one-half mile from the vicinity of the project. Member Hobbs inquired about the center of the parking lot. Is the paver section also parking? Mrs. Mathis stated that yes, it was parking as well. Member Rollins asked if the parking would have restrictions at any point during the day. Mrs. Mathis replied there would not be any restrictions, except for one designated parking space for the day care van. Member Heinz asked how may parking spaces were needed for staff. Planner Shepard recalls that there could be up to 12 staff. Planning & Zoning Board March 29, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Member Schneider asked Planner Shepard how many parking spaces would have been allocated at the time the building was going to be a medical office vs the day care today. Planner Shepard referred to the packet page 14 showing medical office building E at 25k sq. ft., which he states was comparable if not more. Mrs. Mathis responded that there were 60 to 70 spaces which is 3 spaces per thousand planned. Member Hansen inquired about the number of spots in the current temporary lot. Mrs. Mathis stated there were 87 spaces available. Member Hobbs asked Planner Shepard regarding his view to whether the current parking plan was in-line with when it was going to be a medical office building, was this not designated in the ODP? Planner Shepard responded that the ODP does not get down to the level of parking spaces, which come at PDP and final plan. The ODP did indicate that tract S of the ODP would be divided between primary and secondary uses. This factors in the whole 270-acres. Member Schneider asked Planner Shepard to explain why Lot 2 parking was not being completed prior to the start of Lot 5. Planner Shepard did not know the answer to that question. Todd Parker, Brinkman, explained the overall development plan and why Lot 2 has not been built out. Lot 2 is currently going through a development review process and they opted to do a temporary lot on Lot 5. Chair Schneider wanted to know if there was a way to establish parking on Lot 2 to ease the burden. Mr. Parker stated yes, and that Lot 2 would be built out and will not be in any temporary phase because it is trailing so closely. Mr. Parker also spoke of additional temporary alternatives for parking. Board Questions & Deliberation Member Rollins will be supporting this project as she appreciates the comments and feels it is wonderful that the development is so successful that there is a demand for parking and that it behooves the property owner of Lots 1 and 2 coming in to provide enough parking in the future so that the tenants are happy and do not have to relocate to somewhere else. It appears, for this project, they are providing a significant amount of parking over what they would be required with no restrictions. Member Hobbs understands the concerns of the owners and citizens. He feels the solutions lie within some coordination with the developer and with the surrounding businesses. Member Hansen made a similar comment regarding the parking situation is not something that can be addressed through the Land Use Code but through the business owners and the land owners in the area. He feels any negative parking impacts will be seen temporary and part of the buildout. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve Harmony Commons Lot 5 Major Amendment, PDP170036. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 7:7. Member Schneider made comment to the fact that the child care facility has enough parking and that he understands that the developer will look at it to see what can be done. Executive Session started at 6:33 pm; the Board reconvened at 6:51pm. 2. Compass Community Collaborative Charter School, SPA180001 Project Description: This is a request to locate a charter school at 2105 S College Ave. (parcel #8731408023). The school aims to accommodate 400 students from grades 6-12. 95 parking spaces currently serve the building. No exterior modifications to the building are proposed as part of this submittal. The school proposes adding striping to various crosswalks in the existing parking lot to provide a stronger pedestrian connection to the MAX. The applicant also proposes adding 12 bicycle parking spaces to serve the school. The site is located within the General Commercial District designated on the City Structure Plan Map. This proposal is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board March 29, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Secretary Gerber reported that no emails from citizens have been received since the packet was published. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project. Also commented on the level of review that this project is subject to. It is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review which applies to Charter Schools per Colorado Revised Statute 31-23-209 and 22-32-124. This process must be completed within 30-days per the Statute. The SPAR review criteria covers the location and conformity to the City’s comprehensive plan, structure plan map, conformity of the general architecture landscape, design standards and impacts. Staff finds that the SPAR meets the character criterion. Staff recommends approval of the Compass Community Collaborative Charter School SPA180001. Luke McFetridge, 2105 S. College, proper owner. Mr. McFetridge gave a brief overview of his experience and the history of the process. The project approach was that of reuse as opposed to new. Jan Harrison, Leader of Compass Community Collaborative School gave brief background of self and partnerships throughout the process. Mrs. Harrison followed with description of the school, it’s teachings, financial ability, support and credentials. Member Hobbs had a clarifying question regarding fire and emergency access. Do you know whether or not Poudre Fire Authority saw that the cuing plan includes overlap in that area and that there could be conflicts with cars stopped in the qued-up section if there is an emergency or fire? Planner Frickey replied yes, that Poudre Fire had a stipulation that the emergency access easement cover all portions around the building. Member Rollins revisited the conditions for parking and cuing. Wanted clarification regarding City staff’s recommendations. Planner Frickey clarified the pedestrian connection as trying to create a path that does not cross as may drive isles. With respect to cuing, the idea is to try to get two lanes for pickup and drop-off. Currently the width is such that could be a challenge and staff is encouraging two lanes. Member Heinz asked if the 95 parking spots was specific to Compass or is it for the whole area. Planner Frickey stated it was for the whole area. Public Input Erik Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, is disappointed about the SPAR process and following a statutory law that Is outdated. He is also disappointed with the planning for the City and planning department within the City. Feels that there should have been a representative from the Urban Renewal Authority present and engaged. Would like to see a pedestrian connection from this planned area to the Spring Creek trail, Creekside Park and other points. Gina Curler, VP, Compass, supports the Compass development because of the range of transportation options available to the students. Adam Fallek, 1811 Remington, supports the project as it will look better than what is currently there and is convenient for parents and students in the transportation area. Agrees with the philosophy behind their teaching. Cindy O’Donnell-Allen, 6243 Buchanan St., supports the project because of alignment, equity and access. Sam Gleeson, 806 Coulter St., supports the project. Talked about his incredibly efficient and convenient commute using the Max to get to the site. He likes the location and design. Ryan Stover, 330 Circle Dr., approves of the Compass model and feels that it is the perfect location. Jaclen Guzman, approves of the project and the benefits to the students. Dawn DuPriest, 1927 Lookout Ln., approves of the project. Doug Watterson, 2121 S. College Ave., supports the project and would be happy to welcome them and partner with the school and their students. The only concern is being cut-off from access. They have semi’s that need to pick up and deliver to the company. This would be a great opportunity to work together. Planning & Zoning Board March 29, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Bonnie Cowen, soon to be Compass teacher, supports the project from the prospective of a Max rider and its convenience to students. Dawn Putney, 5404 Continental Dr., supports the project because the model works for children. She also believes that because of Max, she will be able to hire and use Compass students as they have the transportation available. Dr. Andrew Warnock, 1836 Michael Ln., Director of Education and Outreach Center at CSU, supports the project based on his experience with different schools and their activity in his lab at CSU. The lab will be available to Compass students as well as the visits to Compass School from CSU students. Excellent location for the Charter School. Josie Plaut, 1006 W. Mulberry St., is in favor of the project based on location, commitment of the faculty and staff, their vision and having personally worked with the leadership team. Amy Edelen, supports the project. Pamela Barker, sat on the Founding Board of Compass, supports the project Jocelyn Guzman, student of Compass, likes the location of the school. Staff Response Planner Frickey responded to the question of access to storage units. There will be no changes made to access, the existing circulation pattern will not change. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Rollins wanted clarification regarding the traffic que. Curtis Rowe, Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn and Associates, questioned if Member Rollins was asking specifically relative to the intersection cuing. Member Rollins stated that was correct, the intersection cuing so that traffic at Rutgers and College that would be headed in the East bound direction, peak hour. Mr. Rowe has completed the calculations and believes that at certain instances potentially where the que from the traffic signal may block the interior access. Member Rollins referred to a map of traffic flows and asked Mr. Rowe why he feels this will not work. Mr. Rowe stated that it will not always be blocking and that the que only occurs at the max time and when the light turns green, the traffic will move out, and then will slowly build. Mr. Rowe pointed out that the traffic will come in from Rutgers at that signal, but then potentially leaving from other exit points. Member Rollins pointed out the 250 feet of storage and that at peak hours there will be an extra 100 feet. Mr. Rowe pointed out that the public street network will work and function acceptably with the school traffic. The issues and impacts will be felt more on-site. Member Rollins asked about flexibility of pickup and drop off times. Mrs. Harrison spoke to being good neighbors and stated that they will work with their people to help make everything as smooth as possible and to take the opportunity to move transportation around or have kids meet parents at various Max stops. Member Schneider asked about the percentage of students to the staggered start and end times. Mrs. Harrison feels that the heavier time period for pickup and drop off will be the 8:00 am drop off time and the 3:00 pm pick up timeframes. Member Hobbs wanted to know if the traffic engineering study was based on general civic metrics that did not anticipate x number of these students as a different case being able to be dropped off at different places along the Max line. Mr. Rowe responded that the traffic study was prepared following industry standards. This is a typical private school standard which is more vehicle centric. This makes the traffic analysis more conservative compared to how Compass has described their operations. This will be the same traffic generation that we would find from any private school that does not have busing. Member Heinz asked if the trip generation included those that might take the Max. Mr. Rowe said the trip generation was based on 992. Member Rollins asked if the study was completed with the standard private or did Mr. Rowe looked at the staggered. Mr. Rowe calculated the trip generation based upon the standard and the calculated how much would be during each hour. An assumption was made that the highest hour would be 40%, so they assigned 40% of the school traffic in the peak hour. The 350’ cuing vs the 250’ length accounts for that staggered schedule. Planning & Zoning Board March 29, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Mrs. Harrison commented as part of their culture not only is Max key, biking and carpooling are also key. Compass will never have 1,000 cars coming out of their property. Member Hobbs asked Mrs. Harrison how the school was going to control the number of spaces used by students. Mrs. Harrison responded that they are simply not going to allow the students to park there. Member Hobbs asked how that not only solves the problem on Compass’ property but also for surrounding properties? Mrs. Harrison responded that it is their culture. The culture is about honesty, integrity, neighborliness and eco revitalization and regeneration. She cannot promise that no kid will ever park in the parking lot and sneak across, but it will not be part of their normal culture of activities. Member Heinz asked if the student population would be capped at 400 or if that was the roll-out enrollment number. Mrs. Harrison stated that would be the total number of students. Member Rollins asked if Compass would start with 400 or start with less. Mrs. Harrison responded they would start with about 150 as a goal and that this would allow them to work out the kinks. The estimation is that it would take up to 5 years to reach 400. Planner Frickey added the traffic study assumes the maximum number of students possible and the maximum number of faculty possible. The parking table that staff provided also assumed full enrollment and full faculty as well. Member Schneider requested clarification on the max number of students set at 400. Mrs. Harrison responded that if they wanted to increase their number above 400 they would have to find an additional building and make the art lab part of their campus. 400 is max for the site. Member Rollins asked if they would guarantee that within the first couple of years you would not exceed 200 students. Mrs. Harrison responded that the financial plans has a max set at 225 for year two. Member Hobbs stated that the concerns he had were around parking and traffic flow and whether students were going to go at lunch. He feels that the Board has received some answers that have swayed his concerns in each of the area. The biggest concerns are traffic and the cuing flow on the West side by Rutgers and College and the Whole Foods main entrance being already problematic at times, but there are some safety valves built into the site. Member Rollins had hesitations as she is familiar with cuing, traffic and schools. She loves the energy that everyone has presented and that it is near a Max stop. The one item that convinced her is the commitment that Mrs. Harrison made for the first couple of years that they would have up to 225 students. Member Rollins believes that there will be issues with cuing and how traffic is going to flow, but that the build-up to the max number will help everyone figure out when to arrive. She will be supporting the project. Member Heinz will be supporting the project. What convinced her is how Compass is going to educate and encourage creative problem solving. Member Whitley was skeptical of the project, but has seen how this location can work. He will be supporting the project. Member Carpenter feels that this is a very interesting concept. She really does not feel this is a good place for it, and that maybe we are being a bit over optimistic about how the cuing is going to work and how many problems they are going to have with traffic and for the rest of the area. She will be supporting the project and encouraging Compass to be looking very creatively at some different ways to doing traffic. She would also like to see how many people are actually driving their kids in and how many are biking, and using the Max rather than driving. She will be supporting the project. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Compass Community Collaborative Charter School SPAR review SPA180001, based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing, the Board discussion and the citizen participation that we have heard tonight on this item. Findings of Fact: A. The site of the proposed Compass Community Collaborative Charter School is consistent with the purpose statement for the General Commercial District found in City Plan.