HomeMy WebLinkAboutTREEHOUSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL - PDP - 17-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGShelby Sommer - RE: Neighborhood Mee Summary Page 3
>Regards,
>Lloyd Walker
Shelby Sommer - RE: Neighborhood Mee
Summary
2
hearing on the state regulations which seem to limit the capacity at 15
children.
>Please let me know if you have any questions or further concerns. If you
have any additional comments, you are welcome to email me or send any regular
mail to my office. Have a great 4th of July.
>Shelby Sommer
>Associate Planner, LEED AP
>City of Fort Collins Planning
>970-416-2138
>ssommer@fcgov.com
>>> Iloyd <Iloyd@goku.engr.ColoState.EDU> 7/1/07 8:23:43 AM >>>
>Shelby,
>Thank you for the prompt meeting summary notes. I have several corections I
>want to bring to your attention:
>-The response to question 11 is that the Master Street Plan identifies Valley
>Forge as a local street. While this is the designation on the Plan, the
>reality is quite different. The City traffic operations staff considers
>Valley Forge a "sub -collector", an informal designation due to the function
it
>serves. I have heard this from that staff during previous discussions about
>Valley Forge. The reality of those of us who live on or near Valley Forge
>validates this more correct but informal designation. Please get
>clarification on this issue from the traffic operations staff. I suggest
they
>attend the P and Z hearing to address this issue. I am most concerned about
>traffic and child safety with this proposal. Basing a P and Z decision on
the
>formal but inaccurate designation of Valley Forge is not in the best
interests
>of this proposal or the neighborhood
>-Question 13 and comment 25 states incorectly the number of students allowed
>by City code in the RL zone. City code states 15. My comment 25, item 4
>should state: "20 students are not allowed due to City regulations". I am
not
>acquanted with state code on this issue. Perhaps that should be clarified by
>the applicant at the hearing.
>-Comment 25, by me, should state 'The proposed use is too intense at this
site
>for the following reasons and must be addressed at the hearing"
>As an additional comment, I believe this proposed project can be an asset to
>our neighborhood if the concerns raised in comment 25 can be addressed by the
>applicant to the satisfaction of the P and Z Board. More detailed comments
>will be sent to you soon.
Shelby Sommer - RE: Neighborhood Mee Summary Page 1
From: Iloyd <Iloyd@goku.engr.ColoState.EDU>
To: "Shelby Sommer" <ssommer@fcgov.com>
Date: 07/03/2007 4:39:33 PM
Subject: RE: Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Shelby,
Thanks for your clarification. I stand corrected on the number of children
allowed. The reslut of my mis-read of the code. I am still concerned about
the unloading issue. Seems like using the driveway has its problems due to
the need to back out into the traffic lane. I would still like an explanation
at the hearing about how the city views and treats Valley Forge beyond its
formal classification. I appreciate the revised plan and the way it deals
with staff parking.
Lloyd
>____= Original Message From "Shelby Sommer" <ssommer@fcgov.com>
>Lloyd,
>Thank you for your comments. I have updated the meeting summary per your
recommendations and would also like to respond to your concerns.
>First, with regards to Valley Forge and its classification, I followed up
with Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer (copied on this email), and he
confirmed that Valley Forge is classified as a local street and traffic
operations staff is comfortable with the Treehouse Montessori Proposal loading
and unloading on such street. I should point out, however, that based on the
concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting about the impacts of curbside
drop-off, the school representatives have sumitted a revised plan, which
includes staff parking in the existing garage, freeing up the two -car driveway
for child pick-up and drop-off. The adjacent church will be used for overflow
parking, if necessary. A copy of this revised plan is attached (the proposed
changes are in the drawing on the right).
>With respect to the number of students/children allowed per child care
facility, the City's Land Use Code does not specify that only 15 children are
permitted. The code states:
>"3.8.4 Child Care Center Regulations
>(A) A minimum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of outdoor
play area shall be provided for fifteen (15) children or fewer, with
seventy-five (75) additional square feet being required for each additional
child, except that the size of the total play area need only accommodate at
least fifty (50) percent of the capacity of the center. For the purposes of
this subsection, the capacity of the center is calculated based upon indoor
floor space reserved for school purposes of forty (40) square feet per child.
Any such play area within or abutting any residential district shall be
enclosed by a decorative solid wood fence, masonry wall or chain link fence
with vegetation screening, densely planted. The height of such fence shall be
a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with Section 3.8.11. Where access
to preschool nurseries is provided by other than local streets, an off-street
vehicular bay or driveway shall be provided for the purpose of loading and
unloading children."
>The Treehouse Montessori school has proposed 15 children, with a potential
future enrollment of 20 children, both of which comply with the minimum
outdoor play area and indoor floor space requirements. I am unaware of state
child care facility regulations and will ask the applicant to elaborate at the