Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL SCHOOL PHASE IV ADDITION - SPAR - 16-01A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 24 Chairperson Torgerson stated that all of the comments should be discussed and the minutes of this meeting should go to them as well. Vice -Chairperson Meyer moved to request a hearing of the Board of Education on the Ridgeview Classic School Addition Site Plan Advisory Review, File #16-01A, including the concerns brought up previously. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning Director Gloss asked if any of the concerns the Board raised were responded to adequately by the applicant. Chairperson Torgerson replied that the only one, in his opinion, was the left on Lemay as it was a City -initiated change. Member Lingle stated that if this were a regular PDP, he would not support that condition from staff. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the list of concerns that made up the motion is the list that should be passed on to the School Board. The motion was approved 5-0. Attorney Eckman noted that as many Planning and Zoning Board members as possible should attend that School Board hearing, particularly the Chairperson. Projec . Drake Crossing Wireless Telecommunicat' 4,acility — Project Development Plan, #35-96C Project Descriptio Request fora 65-foot wireless ecommunication facility located at the nortst corner of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road, wi the Drake Crossing ping Center Ine facility has been designed to limit i cts the surrounding properties, by mountin antennas within a canister located at the top a pole. a associated ground equipment is ated in an enclo a next to the pole. The enclosure is attached t e east end of the Fort Collins Car Wash Building, d will use the same brick that is found on the car h building. The property is zoned Neighborhood mercial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 23 Planner Barkeen replied that he requested that the addition match the existing building, as per the contextual standards of the Code. Member Craig asked if those standards override the criteria relating to the other architectural design elements. Planner Barkeen replied that, given the fact that this is a PSD project; staff felt it was appropriate to have them match the existing building as much as possible rather than doing something that does not match but meets Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code. Chairperson Torgerson noted that the school would still exceed the maximum allowable square footage for the zone district whether or not they took the garages out. He added that the Land Use Code standards would have to be met for any other developer — they would not be allowed to match what was there. Planner Barkeen stated that when expansions are done on existing buildings, they do typically fall back to the same character of the approved architectural elevations unless for some reason, the nature of the request exceeds the realm of the previously approved project. Chairperson Torgerson stated that they did not comply in the first place under the Land Use Code, and after being turned down by the Planning and Zoning Board, the School Board overrode the decision and let them build it anyway. Member Lingle again raised concern about the left -turn lane stacking on Lemay stating that if that was at the traffic staffs recommendation, there is no real remedy. Member Craig reiterated her concern about the easement agreement and stated that she did not feel like it was completely addressed and that the Poudre School District needs to be aware of it. Member Lingle suggested that issue could be written in a letter stating the Board's concern — a hearing may not be necessary just for that. Member Craig commented that she wanted a hearing for more issues than just that. Vice -Chairperson Meyer agreed that the School Board needs to hear the concerns at a hearing. Attorney Eckman noted that the state statute does not require the P&Z Board to enumerate the issues to be discussed with the Board of Education, although it may be courteous to do that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 22 Mrs. Schenck went on to discuss the parking agreement with Stuart Business Park. She stated that the church gave the Professional Park the option to park on their lot because they did need it at the time to be able to develop. That was when the parking policy was different and they needed those extra spaces. As it is now, both Ridgeview Classical School and Stuart Business Park parking on their own sites fits the current parking guidelines. Therefore, Stuart Business Park would not be affected and would not be out of compliance. Additionally, Ridgeview has no intentions of taking parking away from the Business Park; they just want to move the existing easement to another location. The existing easement is not being used at this time and has not been used since the school has been there. There is plenty of room to park and Ridgeview would have no problem continuing to share the parking with them. With respect to the left -turn lane, Mrs. Schenck stated that it was the City's idea, not the schools, and the school would take any suggestions from the City as to the best situation. Mrs. Schenck stated that the architecture would be a point of negotiation and that the goal with it was to make the addition as similar in style to the existing building as possible. As far as exceeding the limit on the square footage of the building, Mr. Trampe stated that the square footage shown is what the school actually needs for their functions. He added that he had not taken the garage into consideration. One option would be to get rid of the garage but it is a storage facility at this time. Basically, the school needs this square footage. Mrs. Schenck asked if she missed any of the Board's comments. Chairperson Torgerson replied that she responded to everything. Attorney Eckman told the Board that, now that they have heard the response to comments, they can request a hearing before the Poudre School Board if they are not satisfied with the response. If they are satisfied, they would obviously not request a hearing. The hearing would need to be held within 30 days after the request of the Planning Commission. Then, the charter school may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by School Board resolution. If a request for a hearing is to be made, it should be done by Planning Director Gloss in writing. Member Craig asked if Planner Barkeen instructed the architect to make the addition look like the rest of the building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 21 Chairperson Torgerson commented that this is within the Low Density Residential zone district and the purpose of that is just as it says. Though schools are allowed, it is more typical for the school to have less intensity and more land associated with it. A primarily impervious, high -intensity use within the RL zone district is fundamentally in conflict with that zone district. Member Schmidt commented that, by adding this addition, it sort of ties in the next use of the facility to again being a large facility with a great deal of traffic. It just keeps compounding the problem even if the school does not decide to stay there. Member Schmidt moved to refer these comments to the Board of the Ridgeview Classical Charter School. Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Torgerson asked Mrs. Schenck if she wanted to address those comments this evening. Mrs. Schenck replied that she would address some of the items. Attorney Eckman stated that if Mrs. Schenck felt comfortable commenting, together with the architect, and are authorized to do so on all of the comments, then it would be assumed that the P&Z Board should take her response as the official response. If, however, there are some items Mrs. Schenck is unable to respond to at all, that will mean that we will have to wait. Mr. Carpine asked what kind of timeframe would be involved if they chose to wait to respond to comments. Chairperson Torgerson replied that it would fall on the next scheduled meeting, June 171h, 2004. Mrs. Schenck stated that they are prepared to respond. She started with the school zoning stating that they are zoned for a K-12 school and do fit under that compliance. As far as whether the school moves or not, the original plan of the school was a very large campus with 3 buildings for elementary, junior high, and high school. The realization of that will depend on finances which are not the same as a regular public school. Another option may be to move part of the school to another location at some time. Therefore, it is possible that the enrollment at this location might decrease if some of the classes are moved to another site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 20 representative of the Ridgeview Classical School Board authorized to respond to the comments tonight. If so, did that person want to respond tonight or receive comments and respond at a later date. Mrs. Schenck replied that she had some authority to represent the Board as a whole but added that the Board consists of 5 members and they make decisions as a Board. Attorney Eckman stated that the statute requires the P&Z Board to review the project, and then make comments. The Ridgeview Board is then asked to respond to the comments. He asked Mrs. Schenck if she felt authorized to respond to the comments tonight or if she would rather wait and confer with her Board. Mrs. Schenck replied that she would like to respond to the comments she feels qualified to do so and will not respond to any she does not feel authorized by her Board to do. Mr. Trampe stated that he had calculated the building coverage on the lot and came up with 343 square feet over the 1/3 coverage. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he added up the numbers provided on the site plan and came up with 62,016 square feet total. Mr. Trampe stated that for total floor area, there are 59,120 square feet. Chairperson Torgerson reminded Mr. Trampe that the garages and storage buildings count as floor area as well and that they were added into his calculations. The 62,016 square feet exceeds the maximum allowable by just under 4,000 square feet. Mr. Torgerson suggested that the Board put together a package of comments and then vote on them as a Board. The representative from the school could then respond or wait until a later date. Chairperson Torgerson commented that the building exceeds the maximum coverage allowable within the zone district pretty substantially and that the building does not meet the architectural character aspects of the Code in Section 3.5.3(D)(6). Member Lingle commented that the issue of the left -turn lane on Lemay is a concern in terms of operational aspects and not knowing what the future use of the building will be. Member Craig commented that adding this addition and decreasing the parking may push the Stuart Professional Park out of compliance and that the easement agreement could become, or is, an issue. Planning and Zoning" Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 19 Attorney Eckman replied that the P&Z Board may want to comment that the School Board may want to look at this to see if it would expose the School District to litigation should it move forward because it might be causing the Professional Park to fall out of compliance with the City's regulations. Chairperson Torgerson suggested that the Board go into executive session to discuss this matter given that it might end up in court. Attorney Eckman replied that it would be appropriate. Mr. Difalco stated that the parking agreement is not an easement agreement, it is a restrictive covenant. To change it would require the vote of 3/ of all the land owners in Stuart Professional Park. It is meant to be a very permanent agreement to which changes cannot be readily made. He added that the only restraint on the number of students in the building comes from the fire code and increasing the building size will increase the maximum occupancy. He also asked, if the school is going to move away anyway, why not do it now? Attorney Eckman stated that the document title is a "Reciprocal Easement Agreement." Mr. Difalco replied that it runs with the land and has been made part of the plat. That is the premise upon which it is concluded to be a restrictive covenant. Attorney Eckman asked if Mr. Difalco felt at liberty to share any of the claims they might bring and against whom. Mr. Difalco replied that they would prefer not to bring any claims against anyone and suggested turning the issue over to the School District and letting them deal with it. He noted that every single owner of property at Stuart Professional Park could file an individual lawsuit for the violation of that restrictive covenant. Member Lingle moved to adjourn and re -convene in executive session. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Torgerson welcomed the audience back and noted that this is somewhat of an unorthodox review in that the Board is called on to offer comments and then responses to those comments are given by a School Board representative. Then, if the P&Z Board is satisfied with those, the project can proceed. If they are not satisfied, an appeal can be filed with the Poudre School Board. Mr. Torgerson asked if there was a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 18 Chairperson Torgerson asked what happens when the school moves on and another use is allowed. Mr. Bracke replied that the situation can be evaluated and the access can be modified as part of his purview. Member Lingle asked what other structures have a similar bulk, mass, and scale to this one in the immediate vicinity. Planner Barkeen replied that there are probably not any structures that have a 59,000 square foot footprint in the vicinity but there are structures across the street that are two-story buildings with comparable height and mass. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the addition's architecture meets the base, body, and top provisions of the Code Section 3.5.3(D)(6). Planner Barkeen replied that it may not have met the standards entirely but the key was to match what is out there now. They did do some top banding on the addition which brings it closer to meeting those standards but it does not meet the base and top treatments and the recesses within the walls. The main goal was to match the existing building. Member Schmidt stated that she was concerned about the traffic study because the first part said that, right now, the school is having a slightly higher number of trips than the average charter school would have. She asked if the higher number of students was built in to the traffic study. The traffic engineer replied that he did not reduce any existing traffic — he just prorated it up from 580 to 720 students. It still worked with that number. Member Craig asked about the easement and parking agreement and the use of parking reservation. She stated that she interpreted it to mean that only 20 spaces could be reserved and the remainder of the parking would be open for whomever. Attorney Eckman replied that he interpreted it the same way but there seems to be a contingency in paragraph 2 that this whole agreement is contingent upon the Stuart Professional Park being approved. The agreement was probably an accommodation from the church to the Professional Park to begin with. Member Craig asked how this whole issue would fit into the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 17 Mr. Trampe replied that it would exceed that, very slightly. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the allowable floor area that exceeds it is about 4,000 square feet, almost half of the proposed addition. He asked if it was appropriate to look at the Land Use Code and see if the project complies. Attorney Eckman replied that it is appropriate and suggested that comments be made in the form of a motion as well as inquire if there is anyone present who is authorized to respond to the Board's comments. Mrs. Schunck stated that the parking agreement easement has not been available since they have owned the building. The Professional Park employees were not parking there before and are not parking there now, aside from about 5 or 6 individuals. However, they do have access to the entire parking lot and they still do. The agreement states that the school has the right to reserve up to 20 spaces that the Professional Park employees are not allowed to park in; which has not been done. The Professional Park has breached their part of the agreement as they were supposed to keep up the maintenance of the parking lot and have not done so. Chairperson Torgerson asked about changing the "pork chop" to allow for a 3/ movement in the intersection and a concern about cars stacking in the 2-way left -turn lane. Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, responded that the stacking for the northbound left turn is not that great. Opening it up will help distribute that traffic. At times, the traffic coming off Stuart Street will cause a back up on Lemay. He added that the school has worked well with the City in terms of staggering start times and other things. The City does not think the left turn lanes will be a problem. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the left -turn arrow and striping were done at the City's expense. Mr. Bracke replied that they were because there is other traffic in the area and there were comments that people wanted that before the school went in. The overall expense is pretty minor. Member Craig asked what happens to the people that live on Lemay and want to head north, given the stacking heading southbound. Mr. Bracke replied that it really cannot be done now anyway during peak hours, regardless of the school. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 16 students either. This may be a fine school but it is not in the right location. This has been an unpleasant experience for the neighbors, business park, and the school. Member Lingle asked what the size of the lot is. Chairperson Torgerson replied that it is 4.048 acres. Member Lingle asked how charter schools relate to the School District and if they are exempt from the School District's site development standards. The minimum size the School District would buy would be 10 acres. Mr. Carpine replied that he did not feel comfortable answering that question because he was not involved in the school when they applied for charter status. He introduced Mrs. Schunck who was one of the founders of the school to answer the question. Peggy Schunck, Vice -President of the Board of Directors for Ridgeview Classical Schools, replied that they are exempt from the PSD size standards. A charter school can exist anywhere the P&Z Board and School Board determine is allowable. She added that the P&Z Board did turn down the original request for the school but the School Board approved it. Mrs. Schunck added that the playground will be moved further away from the neighborhood that is complaining about the noise. The new addition will be between the neighborhood and playground to help buffer the noise. The addition will be highly insulated because it will be next to classrooms. The size of the school is growing, regardless of the addition, by about 80 students per year. Member Schmidt asked what the approximate breakdown of the ages of the students is. Mrs. Schunck replied that there are approximately 350 K-6th graders and about 150 7th- 12th graders. It will be a while before the junior and high schools fill up. When it does, we plan on moving at least part of the school if not the whole thing. The reason we are in the building at all is because it was, and still is, the only available building in Fort Collins. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the project was designed relative to the criteria within the Land Use Code. Mr. Trampe replied that he did look at those criteria. Chairperson Torgerson noted that in the RL zone district, there is a maximum building coverage of 1/3 of the total site area and it appears that this addition will exceed that requirement. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 15 Chairperson Torgerson stated that another concern was the number of parking stalls. He noted that on school sites, there is a maximum allowable but not a minimum requirement. Planner Barkeen replied that schools normally have a minimum requirement, which, on this site would be one space per every 1,000 square feet of floor area which would yield a minimum requirement of 64 spaces, which they more than exceed. There is another section in the Code which states that if the site has a shared parking arrangement, they are subject to the maximum requirements, which is how the project was reviewed and they are in compliance with the maximum allowable which is 236 spaces. Chairperson Torgerson noted the citizen concerns about noise and asked how the Code would treat that sort of concern. Planner Barkeen replied that it would be a noise complaint that would have to be assessed. Attorney Eckman replied that noise is generally measured as decibels on the property line. There is a general unreasonable noise provision in the Code but that usually has to be very loud. It is doubtful that a music room would do this. Chairperson Torgerson noted the concern about enrollment increasing and asked if the Board would typically have a cap on enrollment, other than what the building code would dictate. Planner Barkeen replied that the school is aiming for a maximum of 60 students per grade which would be 720 students total. Member Schmidt asked where the 810 number came from. Planner Barkeen replied that 810 is the maximum occupancy of the building per the building code. Mr. Trampe stated that Poudre School District has approved Ridgeview for 810 students and enrollment would continue to increase regardless of this addition. Chances are, they would never reach that 810 before moving to another site. Approximately half of the addition is for uses like band, karate, music, etc. and is considered as gymnasium space. There will also be about 6 classrooms in the addition. Vice -Chairperson Meyer stated that when it comes to noise for the neighborhood, the charter schools need to go to the school district and find out how they determine where a school is going to be located. Ridgeview does not have enough land for the number of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 14 Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked Deputy Attorney Eckman to comment on the legalities of the parking agreement and what the implications of that will be for the Board's decision tonight. Attorney Eckman replied that, in Mr. Difalco's letter, he states that that agreement was reached between the parties in order to obtain City Council approval of the respective construction projects. Mr. Eckman stated that he did not know the history of that. Planner Barkeen stated that the Professional Park was conditioned upon the approval of the Stuart Business Park to obtain this agreement. Attorney Eckman stated that the City parking requirements at the time were different than they are now. At that time, we had imposed minimum parking requirements and we do not do so now. Planner Barkeen stated that there used to be minimum parking requirements for both the church use and the office park use. Whereas, under the current Land Use Code, the office park has a maximum parking requirement. The school also has a maximum parking requirement based on the fact that it has entered into this parking agreement. Otherwise, it would have a minimum parking requirement. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the parking agreement being out of compliance would also put the Professional Park out of compliance with that condition of approval. Planner Barkeen replied that they are not out of compliance with the parking requirement because they could have no parking on that site and be in compliance with the current Land Use Code. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the agreement was a condition of approval, and it is now not being adhered to, would the Professional Park be out of compliance. Attorney Eckman replied that that may be the case. Member Craig stated that some kind of legal agreement was obtained between the Professional Park and the church, so the business park would be in compliance. That agreement stated that it would go with the property in perpetuity. Given that, Member Craig asked if the church property would still have to comply with that. Attorney Eckman replied that that would be a comment the Board may want to make to the School Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 13 their original commitments from 2001. It comes down to commitment, follow-through, and working with integrity. Carmen Mendoza-Luevane, 1248 Solstice Lane, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that she is totally against the new addition due to the music noise that will be emitted from the addition. She stated that she works from home and is bothered by the noise from the playground. She also stated that enrollment will increase because it means more money for the school and added that the traffic has decreased the quality of living in that area. The roads are not designed for this amount of traffic. David Swiss, 1212 Solstice Lane, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that all of the cars for 800 students drive by his home every day, twice a day. He added that the 151 parking spaces will be dramatically insufficient when the large number of younger students turn 16 and are driving to school. When the building was a church, there were no traffic or parking problems. David Cloyd, President of the Stuart Professional Park Business Homeowners Association, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the entrance and exit point of the school is almost directly across Stuart from the entrance and exit to the Professional Park and stated that the primary concern is traffic and safety. He stated that the parking agreement between Ridgeview and Stuart Professional Park was not a private agreement but one drawn up, he believed, by the Planning and Zoning Board when that property was developed a number of years ago. The agreement runs in perpetuity with the property. He also stated concern about what type of use will occupy the building in the future if the school relocates. John Difalco, 4102-1136 East Stuart Street and member of the Stuart Professional Park Association, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that this proposal is not only a traffic, environmental, and safety potential disaster; it creates several legal conflicts which have the potential for continuing conflicts, lawsuits, and hard feelings in a very nice neighborhood. He stated that the parking agreement was mandated by a previous P&Z Board and Council. Though the developer acknowledges the existence of this agreement, he incorrectly states that the matter is currently being negotiated. There are no current negotiations going on between Stuart Professional Park and anyone regarding this agreement. The agreement runs with the land and supercedes any zoning issues. It was mandated by the Zoning authority and the Council and basically allowed anyone to park in the lots on Saturdays and Sundays because of the higher number of cars at the church. Then, during the week, the overflow from the Professional Park could park at the church, which is now the school and is full during the week. Expanding the building on to existing parking spaces further violates this agreement. This is a school issue as well as a neighborhood issue. He stated that he would recommend this be referred to the School Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Trampe deferred the questions to Mr. Carpine, Vice -Principal at Ridgeview Classic School Dominic Carpine replied that there is a traffic pattern to which parents adhere throughout the year. The parking lot is patrolled by the Principal and Vice -Principal and internal tickets are written to parents who do not follow the procedures. The current classes being held in the modular building now are elementary music classes. There were originally 6 modular buildings, all of which have now been integrated into the building. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that he wanted to clarify and correct something in the staff report, in which Planner Barkeen mentioned Statute 31.23.209 which is the general statute for reviewing public buildings. In this case, since it is a charter school, a more specific statute applies. The school district statute is CRS 32.22.124 which has a special section dealing with charter schools. It states that when the Board receives a site development plan, then the Board may "review and comment on such plan to the reviewing body of the charter school." It does not limit the Board to location, character, and extent. If the Board is not satisfied with the response that it has received from the governing board of the charter school, it may request a hearing before the Board of Education regarding the plan. Such a hearing must be held within 30 days after the request of the Planning Commission to the School Board. Following that, the charter school may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by School Board resolution. The School Board can make comments to the Planning Commission at any time, starting tonight at the hearing. Public Input Bill Benson, 1817 South Lemay Avenue, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the existing traffic patterns involve illegal turns and unsafe maneuvers by drivers. He did not approve of the change in turn lanes. Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice Lane, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he is a member of the Stonehenge Community Association Board of Directors and is presenting the minority opinion of that Board. Mr. Gavaldon started by stating that the Association had asked for a fence to be installed on the site and were told that that would be done with no conditions. Approximately 6 months later, the Association was informed that there was a condition — that the Association must not oppose the new addition to the School. The School was told back in 2001 that the Association wanted a traffic study, a parking plan, and for the School to work with the neighbors. Mr. Gavaldon stated that the neighbors were promised that the modular buildings would be removed and one is still there. There is also dead grass and weeds. It has taken some strong pull from the School Board and the City to get the School to follow through on W Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 11 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Gavaldon declared a conflict on this item — Ridgeview Classic School Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review — due to his home being within the notification area for this project. City Planner Bob Barkeen gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the Site Plan Advisory Review. Ridgeview Classic School is a charter school within the Poudre School District and this review is a location, character, and extent review as per state statute and is based on City Plan. The site is located in the RL — Low Density Residential District. This proposal is for an 11,000 square foot addition to be located to the northeast of the main buildings. The current enrollment at the school is just under 600 students. The addition is not anticipated to affect that enrollment aside from the annual increases which will put the enrollment at about 720 students. Mr. Barkeen noted that the traffic study was based on a 720-student enrollment. Larry Trampe, Architectural Resource Group, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the maximum allowed enrollment at the school is 810 and that current enrollment is 585. Mr. Trampe added that the proposed addition will not increase enrollment. Mr. Trampe stated that the new elevations will be brick and Exterior Insulated Finish System, which is essentially what the other additions have been. The height of the existing building will also be matched. There are 146 parking stalls plus 5 handicap stalls, totaling 151 spaces, and no additional parking is planned. Also, no additional site lighting is planned. Gene Cappola, Traffic Engineer, gave a presentation on the traffic study. He stated that there is an existing 2-lane entrance on Stuart, an existing 2-lane exit on Stuart, and a right -in, right -out on Lemay, which is only used for exiting traffic at this time. In the future, there will be a % turn on Lemay which will allow a left turn in, but not out. The proposal is to install a left -turn signal as well as change the southern most eastbound lane on Stuart, be converted to a right -turn lane inbound to the school. The students will be dropped off in certain areas depending on their grade. Mr. Trampe noted that there is currently a joint parking agreement between the school and the business park to the north. The current proposal will change the location of the business park parking to another location on the site. Member Craig asked what the enforcement mechanisms would be to make parents go the correct route in the parking lot. She also asked what was in the modular buildings when they were on the site. 91 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 10 Natural areas are not infrastructure to him. So the whole oFcess is what he daes not favor. Member SZWidt seconded Member Craig's comments. She als elt that staff did a good job puttilg the plan together. The citizen's voted for this o that part is done and the report writes how the money will be spent. If the cif n's vote in transportation or Police, then a repo will be written on how that mone will be spent, but that has not happened yet. Given th consideration, she felt this as a good plan and has quite a bit of public comment. She anked staff as was d to see it move forward. Member Gavaldon added that we cn't have city. We are going to have all natura r'a < and say "I think we made a mistake" an e go back to the basics of what Fort Co ns i . natural areas and we certainly do ' need to border and now we have to mai ain it. ,a'lot of money to do a lot of things in the ind no fundamentals. Citizens can go back may need to say "no" and repeal these and We need other things more than we need buying natural areas on the Wyoming Chairperson Torgerson als felt that staff has done a g d job on this one. However, he disagrees so strong) ith the one's that are up near th yoming border. He has real concerns with Fo Collins buying natural areas that are s far from Fort Collins that there are actually t ns between us and them and he believes t t is inappropriate. For that reason f�dwould be supporting the motion, but in general it ' a good plan, it is just that aspe that he disagrees with. There w a split vote on the motion with Members Meyer, Gavaldon anti, Torge on voting for the motion and Members Craig, Lingle and Schmidt against the motion to deny. Project: Ridgeview_Classic_School_Addition,_Site_P_lan Ad: visory_Review, #1641A Project Description: Request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for an 11,000 square foot addition to the existing school. The addition will include a gymnasium and additional office space and is located along the southeast portion of the building. The site is at the southeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Stuart Street and is zoned RL — Low Density Residential. Staff Recommendation: Approval