Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY BUILDING - SPAR - SPA130006 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 8 Member Hart supports the project and would like to see some of the student behavior issues addressed. Member Schneider also supports the project. Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Front Range Community College Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130006 based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the Staff Report on page 6. Member Schneider seconded and reiterated that he appreciated the efforts of FRCC to engage the community and the need for this type of education. The motion was passed 4:1, with Chair Smith dissenting. Other Business The Board thanked Chair Smith for his contributions over the last 8 years. They also thanked Secretary Sanchez -Sprague for her work and contributions. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 7 City Deputy Attorney Eckman responded by confirming that there is a statute which states that, if the commission fails to act within 60 days from the date of official submission to it, then approval will be recognized. The statute does not require any neighborhood meetings nor notice requirement. Member Schneider asked why this particular location was chosen and whether the location could be changed. Mr. Walters explained that the location is strategically determined in order to achieve the prescribed academic adjacencies that ensure a smooth -functioning campus. Member Hart stated that the issue of noise and the presence of chemicals hadn't been properly addressed. Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the city's decibel limits and said that property owners can request testing for decibel compliance. He went on to say that potentially hazardous materials stored on the site is part of the Integrated Technology Program and that a Hazard Mitigation Plan is being developed in conjunction with Poudre Fire Authority. Member Hart inquired as to whether the size of the operation will increase. Mr. Walters confirmed that the new building will house the same programs at the current enrollment levels. He stated that the purpose of the building is to enhance teaching situations. Board discussion Chair Smith stated that he is struggling with some of the elements of this SPAR. Specifically, he is concerned with the intensity and density of the larger lots and whether the character is appropriate based on the proximity to residents. He acknowledged the applicant's efforts to revise the original design, but he stated he was not entirely comfortable with the current character, location and extent. Member Schneider asked how close the existing classrooms are currently to the residential area, and Planning Manager Gloss responded that they are at least 300 feet apart. Member Kirkpatrick asked why other potential sites were not considered. Mr. Walters acknowledged that they had considered every buildable piece of land on campus; however, each possibility seemed to have drawbacks. Member Schneider asked if the building footprint could be moved further to the west. Mr. Walters responded that there is a detention pond system and drainage ditch in that space that would prevent that move. Member Kirkpatrick asked whether the " U shape of the building could be rotated to achieve greater buffering. Mr. Walters responded that maintaining the southern exposure is still optimum. Member Hart conceded that there has been a reasonable effort to minimize noise. Member Carpenter asked for further explanation on why the building couldn't be relocated in another section of the campus. Mr. Walters again explained the campus objectives of clustering the classrooms and maintaining academic adjacencies Member Schneider stated that, while he is empathetic to citizen concerns, he still believes that FRCC has good intentions. He would prefer to move the new building a little further away from neighborhood, but he is now more supportive of this project. Mr. Walters stated that the programs would have to be shut down in order to do modifications to the buildings. A new building would allow academic programs to continue uninterrupted. He further stated that, on the northwest corner of the campus, there are severe grading and detention issues. Rebecca Greek, of Oz Architecture, added that, with regarding to moving the building site, there are limitations of existing grading and not enough space for the building. She went on to say that the existing building was built in 1973, and there are significant safety concerns, because there isn't enough room for the students and the equipment in the classrooms. FRCC needs new infrastructure rather than trying to remodel existing infrastructure. Chair Smith reminded the group that, while their purpose is not to redesign the proposed building, he does not feel comfortable supporting this project. Member Carpenter agreed with Chair Smith in his assessment. Member Kirkpatrick stated that she supports the project on the basis that FRCC existed before the neighborhood did, and there are other things that could still be done to mitigate noise. Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 6 enrollment models actually suggest a decline over the next few years. After the initial neighborhood meeting, some changes were made to address their concerns. Some reconfigurations were done on the building shape, spacing, and orientation, with the goal to isolate the activity visually and acoustically and address some of the noise concerns. Some additional parking will create more of a buffer between the campus and the neighborhood. The closest corner of the building is now 170 feet away from the neighborhood. These changes were presented to the neighborhood and received more positive feedback and other enhancement suggestions. He showed the Board three building perspectives. He confirmed the intention to align the project with the city plans. Public Input Rob Kaczanowski, 720 Bentley Place, stated that the meeting notices were received late, and several neighbors did not receive the notices in time to attend the second meeting. At the initial meeting, between 100 and 200 people attended, and he felt that most objected to the project. His feeling is that it would be more beneficial to inconvenience the students with a remodel than to inconvenience the residents with a new building. He believes this project is a "band -aid" to the space issues. He is concerned with the proximity of chemicals, noise radiation, and technology interference. He would like to have more time to look at the plans. He is concerned that the neighborhood property values would decline. Melanie Stalzer, 620 Bentley Place, stated that the majority of homeowners are against this project. She also stated that the neighbors have asked FRCC to move some of the proposed buildings, to provide additional landscaping, and to work with students to reduce the noise pollution. The original plan for this building was where the parking lot ended up, and the residents are concerned that this project is happening quickly. End of Public Input Staff Response Planning Manager Gloss stated that, with respect to the optional second neighborhood meeting notice, he understood that it was still sent out within the prescribed time standards. He went on to clarify that the distance to nearest residence is actually 120 feet from the campus. Regarding the noise issues, FRCC has provided the response that they are cognizant of the issue and are willing to work with students on this. Mr. Walters addressed the location of the facility. FRCC considered relocating to a more industrial area rather than the current campus; however, inefficiency becomes a problem. In addition, it is difficult for students to take advantage of all programs offered. In order to ensure student success and to keep the expense manageable, having one campus site is a better solution over maintaining multiple satellite sites. Board Questions Member Hart asked about the timing of notices given for hearings and whether certain time constraints exist without extension ability. Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 5 that is appropriate and acceptable to the public and that he is pleased with the consistent and detailed manner in which the plans have been proposed. Member Hart made a motion that, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions on pages 15, 16, and 17 of the Staff Report, the Board should approve the Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing #PDP130014, including the modifications to standards 3.2.3(C) Solar -Oriented residential Lots, 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses in E Zone, 4.27(D)(5) Density/Intensity in E Zone, and 4.27 (13)(3)(a)(1) Single -Family lot size in the employment zone. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion was passed 4:0. Member Carpenter returned to the hearing at 6:58pm. Project: Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130006 Project Description: This is a request to construct a 29,000 square foot Integrated Technology Building on the Front Range Community College's (FRCC) Larimer Campus. The new building includes lab space for instruction and training, multiple support classrooms and staff offices that support the Integrated Technology Program, which provides instruction in welding, automotive and clean technology trades. The new building is proposed to be located over an existing surface parking lot on the east side of the campus. FRCC proposes a minimum of a 70 foot setback from the Coventry Subdivision to the east, and that will include a landscaped bufferyard and pedestrian trail. Recommendation: That the Board find the three criteria of the SPAR have been met. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Secretary Sanchez -Sprague stated that we received an email from Fay Baker regarding the South Shields traffic. A member of the audience submitted a copy of photos of campus areas in question. The photos were passed around to board members and will be marked Exhibit 2. Planning Manager Gloss gave a presentation of the proposal for a new technology building on the Larimer campus of FRCC. This project is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR), which is different from the typical process. The SPAR is the city's response to a state statute which allows public entities to have their projects reviewed relative to their comprehensive plan, and, more specifically, under three criteria: the location, character, and extent of the application relative to that adopted comprehensive plan. The planning staff at the City of Ft Collins has performed an analysis based on these criteria. Bruce Walters, Campus Vice President for Front Range Community College (FRCC) Larimer Campus, gave a presentation of the technology program. FRCC was originally built as a vocational training center for three school districts. Today there are 350-400 high school students on campus daily. The campus has grown significantly with a 25% enrollment growth over the last five years. They have hired an architect to devise a master plan, but this plan indicated a space deficit of approximately 90,000 square feet for the existing enrollment population. Safety of students has also become an issue. The new building will replace a building that was built in the 1970s. The plan is to use every building for current and proposed needs, and the new building is not intended to promote an increase in enrollment. Their Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2013 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from November 14, 2013 2. Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning, #ANX130002 4. "Link-N-Greens" Community Commercial — Poudre River Zone District 6. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment, #MJA130006 Member Hart made a motion to approve the December 12, 2013, Consent agenda as stated including minutes from the November 14, 2013 hearing, Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning #ANX130002, Link-N-Greens Community Commercial — Poudre River Zone District, and Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment #MJlA130006. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion passed 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan, #PDP130014 5. Front Range Community College Integrated Technology Building Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130006 Project: Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing Project Development Plan #PDP130014 Project Description: This is a request to subdivide 15.23 acres into 76 lots for single-family detached homes. The site is located along the west side of Joseph Allen Drive and is approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Joseph Allen Drive and East Drake Road. A Union Pacific/Southern Pacific rail line is located approximately 75 feet west of the parcel. The project contains approximately 13 acres in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district and 2 acres in the E, Employment zone district. Recommendation: Approval Member Carpenter recused herself due to being in the notification area Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Secretary Sanchez -Sprague stated that an email had been received from Marsha Hultgren and a follow- up response to that email had been sent by City Planner Holland. Chair Smith requested that the citizen with the concerns indicate the specifics of those issues (to be marked Exhibit 1). Peggy Grice, 2254 Eastwood Drive, stated that her issues were with traffic, density, and landscaping. Based on these concerns, Chair Smith requested a full presentation from the City Planner. City Planner Holland gave an executive summary of the development plan, including a diagram of the area and a general overview of the site plan. He discussed the density, the lot sizes, and the percentage of secondary uses. He also discussed the traffic considerations, which are consistent with the overall development plan. He stated that the project took into consideration street enhancements to ensure good connections to Timberline Road and increase neighborhood exits. The traffic analysis did not recommend any additional intersection improvements. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Absent: Hatfield and Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Holland, Gloss, Levingston, Beals, Sanchez - Sprague, Burnett, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. She noted that one item that was previously on the Discussion agenda has been requested to be moved to the Consent agenda, specifically the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if anyone present, citizens or Board members, wanted to remove any items from the Consent agenda. Citizen participation: Peggy Grice, 2254 Eastwood Drive, requested discussion of the Spring Creek Farms North PDP; therefore, this item will be pulled from the Consent agenda and added to the Discussion agenda.