Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTREEHOUSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL EXPANSION - MJA/FDP - 10-10/A - REPORTS - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 10 school and neighborhood children. He believes it's a bad location and he reluctantly would not be voting for it. The Motion was approved 5:1 with Member Smith voting against the motion. Other Business: Director Gloss reported that a Planning, Transportation and Development Director search was unsuccessful. A second round effort to seek qualified candidates for that position would begin shortly. He thanked members of the Board for their interest and participation on the selection panel. It is likely they will be tapped again as additional candidates are pursued. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. eron Gloss, . r r David Lingle,-ChakJ Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 9 Chair Lingle noted he was looking at it the same way except that if this project was four houses to the east and met the 1500 foot limit; it would have no greater impact on the neighborhood. It wouldn't make it any more compliant. Lingle believed it was equal to or better than and would be supporting the motion. Member Rollins stated she really likes the location. She likes that it's close to the signalized intersection ... not requiring parents to drive more on the neighborhood streets to reach the school. She takes exception to the 1500 foot limit in this case because from a neighborhood impact perspective it's better in the proposed location and the characteristics of a 15 to 20 student school is entirely different from that of Children's World characteristics. The Motion was approved 5:1 with Member Smith voting against the motion. Member Schmidt would like to place a condition limiting the number of students. She likes 15 because that appears to be what the State considers the difference in character between a large and small school. And at that those levels it triggers different qualifications for its teachers. Attomey Daggett asked that the Board consider using reference to Section 3.5.10? of the Land Use Code which considers impact to the neighborhood and imposing additional conditions. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Tree House Montessori School PDP Type II417-07 with condition as allowed by LUC Section 3.5.10). Enrollment would be limited to 15 students as a reflection of the current character of the school per the Findings of Fact beginning on page 6 of the Staff Report. Campana seconded the motion. Member Stockover was not sure the condition should limit the students to 15. He'd like to see a fudge factor that would allow up to 20 students and he would like the Board to discuss with the applicant if they'd be okay with 15. Applicant Leland responded that allowing 20 students would fit into their long term goal for that space. To move above 15 however would require nine months of full time training on the part of the directress. Chair Lingle asked what the State's intent is in requiring that level of training. Leland did not have that background information and offered to get back to the Board if possible. Member Campana had reservations about whether this project would work in a neighborhood setting. The information provided tonight help to allay some of those concerns. He did, however, believe that 15 students was the limit he'd like to see to allow for a time when they could see if it could work in this neighborhood. Member Schmidt thinks that setting the threshold at 15 would be fair to everyone concemed and would give all an opportunity to reevaluate if a major amendment was sought later for a larger number. Chair Lingle noted he'd like to err on the conservative side. If the home had been occupied by a single family, you'd be looking at the impact of say 3-4 children. The proposed limit will give the neighborhood a chance to review. Member Smith said he would not be supporting the motion. As a former resident of that neighborhood he didn't agree with the modification request, he believes Valley Forge while classified as local is really a minor collector, he has concerns about stacking especially because of traffic generated by a hair salon business in that same area, and he's concerned about the speeding and the safety of the Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 8 Member Smith asked Walker what his concerns would be if all conditions outlined in his letter dated July 9 could not be met. Walker responded that the neighbors were not against the project per se, they just believed that if the conditions were added it would make for a better project. They do have concerns about the number of students and would like to have the opportunity to provide feedback should the number increase. At a future date they would have a track record of how the operations had affected the neighborhood at the lower level. They had concerns about the agreement for additional parking with the church. Because the church is on prime property, the time could come when it may not be there and a source of additional parking. He also had concerns about the conclusion that Children's World (less than 1500 feet away) had been abandoned (after 18 months.) Their uses as a child are center had been approved in a Planned Unit Development. Chair Lingle asked applicant Leland what they would consider the upper limit. She responded 20 could be handled quite comfortably but as she mentioned earlier they were limited at the directress's current training level. With additional training, she would be allowed by the State to operate a larger operation. Member Schmidt asked if the only parking agreement between the school and the church was the informal letter in the file. She was wondering how binding that agreement was and how easily the church could change they're mind if the didn't like the number of people using the path to the school. Staff member Sommer noted that additional parking is not currently required by Code so nothing beyond that simple statement was required. They could go back for a more formal agreement. Applicant Leland noted for the Board that the path is currently used by the neighborhood on their way to Drake's Crossing and the lot is less than a manicured lawn so she did not believe that would be an issue for the church. Chair Lingle wanted to note for the record that a total of four letters were received by the Board (including Mr. Walker's.) Three neighbors were opposed and one was in favor of the project. Member Schmidt moved to approve the request for modification of standard 4.4(b)(3)(c)(1) because it is not detrimental to the public good and Is equal to a compliant plan with at least 1500 feet from the existing the child care because it serves the same neighborhood as Its present location (at Foothills Unitarian Church.) Rollins seconded the motion. Attorney Daggett recommended it would be helpful if you would frame your justifications making more specific reference to the impact that you are concerned about and how those are different or the same. Member Stockover noted he thought the difference has to do with one is in a commercial center and one is in a residential neighborhood. If the Code's intent is against a proliferation in a commercial setting, he would agree with the 1500 foot limit. The difference in this case, however, is it's in a neighborhood setting. Member Schmidt offered a friendly amendment to the original motion. it would now read: Member Schmidt moved to approve the request for modification of standard 4.4(b)(3)(c)(1) because It is not detrimental to the public good and is equal to a compliant plan with at least 1500 feet from the existing the child care because this child care project is in a residential setting and it serves the same constituency as it currently does in It's current location. Rollins seconded the friendly amendment. Member Smith said he would not be supporting the motion. He thinks there may be another residential property in that same general neighborhood that could serve the school's constituency and meet the 1500 foot requirement. Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 7 a specific operator. Assistant City Attorney Daggett agreed. Member Smith asked if use could transfer with sale to another childcare business. Gloss responded yes. Chair Lingle asked for staffs position on a looped drive through (circular drive) at the childcare center. Transportation staff member Ward Stanford replied Traffic Operations has no specific concern — they're fine with yes or no on a looped drive through. Valley Forge has a "local" classification up to 1000 vehicles per day. Currently they are at 800 vehicles per day so the addition of the traffic generated by 15 students would not add significantly to its current level. Member Smith asked Stanford to speak to Walker's "sub -collector" comment. Stanford was not familiar with that term. Classifications above local would be minor collector at 1500 vehicles per day and major collector at 5000 vehicles per day. Member Smith asked for Constitution's classification. Stanford said it was a collector. Member Rollins asked how the City deemed appropriate traffic calming in this or other neighborhoods. Stanford replied that over time the City's found traffic calming brought more negative (such as noise from sudden stops then acceleration to resume speeds, circumventing and going over driveways and lawns, materials dropped from pickups that had bounced) than positive outcomes. With those outcomes and the City's financial straits, the program has become more an educational program. They would, however, support a neighborhood that wanted to pursue that option. That would mean the interested party would need to get approval of 70% of the neighbors and bear the cost of installation. Member Smith asked Stanford to speak to `stacking' at the intersection west (Taft Hill & Valley Forge) of the property. Stanford replied Traffic is not aware of any negative impacts at that intersection. Their system is not detecting any stacking problems there. Member Schmidt asked if any research had been done that spoke to the safety of children from vehicles backing up in a driveway. Stanford responded he was not aware of any general study but there may be something related to a specific incident. He noted backing up is a common activity requiring the care of parents (or teachers in a school or child care setting) to insure the safety of children. Schmidt asked the applicant how that safety issue would be addressed. Applicant Leland replied there will be two teachers on staff --one to care for the children should the other need to assist in the drop off of students. As a board they decided that rather than just pull up for a drop off the parents would use the driveway and insure their child was safely inside. Member Schmidt asked if the Board could decide whether an increase of more than 15 students would constitute a change in use. Director Gloss responded yes. Assistant City Attorney agreed noting it would be allowed so long as the restriction is related to the use itself and its impact on the neighborhood. On the topic of limiting the number of students, Director Gloss said the Land Use Code gives the Board an opportunity to craft a condition that would limit the number of students based on operations and the impact the additional students might have on the neighborhood. He suggested the Board may want to consider discussing that upper limit with the applicant in a public forum so neighbors would know what range of students would be the maximum. Member Schmidt noted she had the impression that should the applicant reach that upper limit and want to return to the Board to consider additional students that would be done with a minor amendment. Her concern is that minor amendments do not require neighborhood notification. Staff member Sommer suggested setting a threshold --for example 15 or 20 students. Anything beyond that threshold would be a change in character and would trigger the need for a major amendment requiring neighborhood notification and Board review. Planning $ Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 6 neighborhood for the past 5 years at Foothills Unitarian Church. For that reason, they believe there will be very little impact on traffic flow. It is their experience that drop-off and plck=up occurs at various times and they wouldn't have any "rushes" exceeding 2-4 families at one time. Operating times occur only during daytime hours, closing on weekends and holidays that follow the CSU and Poudre School schedules. In addition, this property is their preferred location because it is in a neighborhood that currently benefits from the Montessori preschool. The house is a one -level home with a layout easily compliant with state regulations for a preschool with a large back yard for play space and gardening, adequate storage in the basement, appropriate employee garage parking, and overflow or off-street parking available through the church parking lot in the back. A flagship Montessori school at Mountain and Shields has flourished in a neighborhood environment. Until this summer, the property was an abandoned rental property. They believe the proposal will fit in and improve the quality of the neighborhood. Member Scmidt asked how many of the students come from the neighborhood. Leland replied 25% with the remaining students coming from west Fort Collins and some as far south as Loveland. Member Rollins asked about the school schedule —do they break in the summer like Poudre R-1. Leland responded they have a 10 week summer session and then break. Chair Lingle asked which State department regulates Montessori. Leland responded she'd be guessing but thinks it's the Department of Education. Lingle said in the staff report it reported they were considering 15 to 20 students. Leland replied there was enough space for 20, however, the Directress would need additional training prior to the school making any plans for expanding above 15 students. Public Input Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord, is a member of the Rolland Moore West Network Steering Committee — a neighborhood group. They recognize the school will be using a derelict house and that would be an improvement. Their concerns are the intense use of the site and it's proximity to the busy intersection of Valley Forge & Taft Hill. Their main concern is traffic and child safety. Not just the safety of the children using the facility but the increase in traffic and its impact on the safety of neighborhood children who use the nearby Lincoln Green neighborhood pool. Their recommendations are: a paved drive -through, a loading zone, some type of traffic calming devices and lastly if the school ever decides they're ready for more than 15 students, the opportunity to comment. Finally, they don't agree with staff that a request for modification is equal to a compliant plan (one that is located 1,500 feet from the existing Children's World building). Public Input Closed Chair Lingle asked if approved, would the Code allow them to add as many students as they could given available indoor and outdoor space. Sommer responded yes --given their space availability, up to 30 students. Chair Lingle asked, as the number of students grew, what would trigger a staff review? Director Gloss noted it would operate under the criteria for a minor amendment and staffs discretion related to physical and operational characteristics and its impact on the surrounding area. Chair Lingle asked if the approval could be specific to a certain operator such as Montessori. Director Gloss responded he would defer to the City Attorney but he believed approval was for use and not for Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 5 This POP safely and conveniently accommodates the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Parking for employees will be provided in the existing two -car garage and the existing driveway will be used for child pick-up and drop-off. The property currently features a rollover curb to the existing driveway. A handicap accessible ramp will be provided near the handicap parking area to a building entrance located on the east side. This POP features walkways connecting the street sidewalk and pick-up/drop-off area to the building entry. The applicant has entered a shared parking agreement with the Fort Collins Bible Church, located directly south of the subject property. The church parking lot will be available to Tree House Montessori School to use for additional staff and/or overflow parking as needed. A gate in the south fence will allow access between the church parking lot and the Tree House Montessori back yard play area. This agreement creates a situation is equal to, or perhaps even better than, a compliant plan because it ensures parking alternatives to prevent spillover parking on the neighborhood streets, whereas many houses located 1,500 feet away from the existing facility are not located in areas where shared parking agreements would be feasible to pursue. The POP provides full tree stocking on the street frontages and landscaping throughout the project. The existing silver maple tree in the front yard will remain, as will the majority of the existing trees in the back yard/play area. Additional landscaping will include child -friendly ground cover, an organic garden and landscaping along the parking area perimeter. The POP provides for the preservation of an existing six foot high privacy fence at the property line between this site and the residential properties on the west and east, and the church property to the south. A gate will be provided along the southern edge of the fence for access to the church parking lot. A Transportation Impact Study Memorandum was submitted for this POP and is attached. The memorandum concluded that the while the proposed child care center will generate more traffic than a single-family house, the type of traffic and vehicles will be similar to that of a house, and that the traffic operations at/near the property will be acceptable. Staff recommends approval of the request modification to Division 4.4(13)(3)(c)(1) — Child Care Centers. Staff recommends approval of Tree House Montessori School POP, #17-07. As a follow up to work session discussion, Chair Lingle asked what staffs position was relative to the need for a modification since Children's World had not been used for eighteen months. Sommer replied that abandonment relates only to residential property that had a converted use and it had not been used for that purpose. Children's World use is tied to their approved PUD (Plan Unit Development.) Member Rollins asked what is needed to meet parking code requirements. Sommer reported the Code requires nothing less than two or more than three. Rollins expressed concern about the distance from the church lot to the back gate and how that might be a detriment in the winter after a storm. Sommer noted that agreement is simply for overflow (parents there to visit the school or attend a board meeting) Member Schmidt asked if there was on -street parking. Sommer replied yes. In fact, in addition to what was available at the property, the neighbor to the east had offered use of the public right-of-way in front of her property. Shawn Leland, a parent and board member, noted the Montessori preschool is an educational facility that caters to 3 to 6 year olds (preschool) children and is Montessori specific, requiring Montessori certified directors and experienced teachers. TreeHouse Montessori has been operating in this Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 4 duplex similar to the current structure. It will be an improvement to the structure and to the neighborhood. She would support.the motion. Chair Lingle noted that philosophically he was opposed to teardowns. At the Board's worksession, they considered the proposal asking why the home was not simply raised, excavated to a lower depth and returned to the site. He appreciated the information provided by Schneider as to the reasons why it would be demolished and reconstructed and would be supporting the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Project: Treehouse Montessori School — Project Development Plan - #17-07 Project Description: This is a request to convert the existing single-family residential house located at 2013 Valley Forge Avenue to a childcare facility known as Tree House Montessori School. The development proposal includes adding one parking space, utilizing the existing driveway as a child drop-off area, updating the building interior and exterior, enhancing the existing landscaping and converting the back yard to a large, fenced play area. The property is located on the south side of Valley Forge Avenue, three properties east of South Taft Hill Road, in the RL — Low Density Residential Zone District Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request modification to Division 4.4(B)(3XcX1) — Child Care Centers. Staff recommends approval of Tree House Montessori School PDP, #17-07. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Shelby Sommer reported this PDP complies with the purpose of the RL — Low Density Residential District in that while child care facilities are classified as a commercial use, this proposal complements the adjacent residential uses by serving the surrounding neighborhood and by maintaining a single-family residential appearance. Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification to Land Use Code standard 4.4(BX3XcX1). In this district, no child care center shall be permitted to be located within one thought five hundred (1,500) feet of any existing child care center with the city. While the Children's World facility located at 2140 Valley Forge Avenue is 317 feet from the proposed location, the applicant has stated the Children's World facility has been closed and has sat empty for over 18 months. They also believe the Montessori preschool would not hinder any child care business opening in this facility because Montessori would serve an entirely different population than a childcare center. Montessori caters only to 3 to 6 year old (preschool) children. Staff has determined that this request for modification is equal to a compliant plan (one that is located 1,500 feet from the existing Children's World building). This building may continue operations as a child care center in the future, or be converted to another use that is permitted in the NC — Neighborhood Commercial Zone District through a major or minor amendment to its approved development plan. • .0 Planning S Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 3 designation, and that the approved Project Development Plan was compatible with the surrounding area. This Minor Amendment request is also compatible with the East Side Neighborhood Plan as it is the reconstruction of the existing house with the same building footprint and approved building elevations. Jeff Schneider of Armistead Construction said they discovered that the existing basement could not be finished per code requirements, and due to the updating required inside the existing house, reconstructing a new basement and house would be more cost effective and safer for the individuals working on the project. In fact asbestos issues will be addressed. The newly constructed duplex will be identical to what was proposed at the time the PDP was approved. Member Schmidt asked if all the windows would be new. Schneider replied that all materials will be new and be placed as shown on the approved plan. Additionally, the materials will comply with energy code requirements and all construction will meet building standards, Member Rollins asked if the building needed to be raised to address the height problems in the basement. Schneider replied they would excavate down and the net result is the house would not be higher then the current structure. Public Input Chair Lingle asked for public input and wanted to remind the audience the request before the board was for a minor amendment proposal to demolish the existing building and reconstruct it in a manner identical to the approved development plan, including using the same building footprint and elevations as the current structure. The original approval was not open for discussion. Kimberly Zailyk, 75 Circle Drive, said she was opposed to "tear downs" (the demolition of older structures and replaced by new) and asked If it would be owner occupied. Schneider responded yes. Zailyk asked how issues such as a cracked foundation would be caught. Lingle responded that it was new construction and the Citys inspection program would cover inspections at several phases of construction including foundation, wiring, etc. Zailyk asked if the owner was aware of the building's defect at the time of purchase. Staff member Sommer noted with the owner not in attendance it would be hard to speculate what she knew at the time of purchase. Schneider noted the building when purchased was non -conforming as to being a legal duplex. Ms. Blaserwants to make it a conforming duplex. Chair Lingle also noted that at the time of original PDP request, the structure was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission and deemed not eligible for historic designation due to alterations to the original structure. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt made a motion to approve 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use - Project Development Plan (PDP) - #21-06 Minor Amendment based on the Findings of Fact found on page 7 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion. Member Schmidt noted at the time of the original PDP review, the board evaluated the merits of the proposal and believed it was an appropriate use and would bring it into compliance. In fact, many houses in this same area have illegal uses. With this amendment, the owner will reconstruct the Planning & Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Page 2 reconstructing a new two-family dwelling that matches the previously approved building footprint and building elevations. The property is located on the north side of East Pitkin Street, east of Peterson Street and west of Whedbee Street, and is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chair Lingle asked the citizen to ask whatever questions she had relative to the minor amendment Kimberly Zailyk, 75 Circle Drive, said that as a 22 year resident of the neighborhood, she wanted to know how long the new owner had resided there. She also noted she was not able to attend the meeting in which the Board approved 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use Project Development Plan to convert the existing single-family home to an over/under duplex. She noted that while seven neighbors had spoken against the Change of Use Project Development Plan, the project had been approved. She was opposed to the minor amendment as she considered what has transpired as a "tear down" project. The property owner Sarah Blaser was not present. Jeff Schneider of Armistead Construction, acting as the applicants agent, responded that Sarah had owned the property since April 2006 and would reside in one of the duplex units. Planner Shelby Sommer reported the approved Project Development Plan included an addition to the existing house and finishing the basement to add a second dwelling unit. The Minor Amendment proposal is to demolish the existing building and reconstruct it in a manner identical to the approved development plan, including the same building footprint and elevations. The applicant has requested an amendment to the approved plans because the applicant discovered that the existing basement could not be finished per code requirements, and due to the updating required inside the existing house, reconstructing a new basement and house would be more cost effective. Staff has determined that this amendment is not a change of character to the approved development because it the new house will be constructed with the building footprint and elevations in accordance with the approved development plan. The purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District is: "intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family and low- to medium -density multi -family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan." This proposal complies with the intent of the NCM District as it preserves the nature of the existing structure by constructing a new, nearly identical structure, by providing a two-family use as permitted by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Two-family dwellings when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to an existing building are permitted in the NCM District and subject to Planning and Zoning Board review, provided that such two-family dwelling is located in a street -fronting principal building. The proposed two-family dwelling is located in the street -fronting principal building at 412 E. Pitkin. The existing building will be demolished and then reconstructed with the same elevations and footprint as was approved with the Project Development Plan. This property is designated as a Neighborhood Preservation area by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Historic Preservation Staff has determined that this property is not eligible for historic landmark LJ Council Chairperson Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Brigitte Schmidt Planning and Zoning Board July 19, 2007 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Staff on: Cameron Phone: (W) 223-1820 Phone: (W) 491-2579 Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Members Absent: Wetzler Staff Present: Gloss, Daggett, Sommer, Olt, Stanford, and Sanchez -Sprague Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle ask members of the audience or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. • A member of the audience asked that the 412 E. Pitkin Street -Minor Amendment be pulled from Consent. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 3. McClelland's Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing Annexation & Zoning - #33-01 P Discussion Items: 2. 412 East Pitkin Street —Minor Amendment 4. Treehouse Montessori School — Project Development Plan - #17-07 Member Smith moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes minutes from the June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and McClelland's Creek PD & PLD 2n° Filing Annexation & Zoning - #33-01P. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Project: 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use - Project Development Plan (PDP) - #21-06 Minor Amendment Project Description: This is a request for a Minor Amendment to the previously approved 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use Project Development Plan. The 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use Project Development Plan approved the conversion of the existing single- family home to an over/under duplex by finishing the basement and adding on to the rear of the house. The Minor Amendment proposal amends the approved Project Development Plan by demolishing the existing house and