HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL SCHOOL, REVISED PHASE IV ADDITION - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 16-01B - CORRESPONDENCE - OTHER JURISDICTIONSawnwe"RUNW..481*3
G
Likewise, the BOE didn't have to respond to an issue that
didn't have all the details completed yet. Ridgeview also
wouldn't have to start all over with the review process but
could pick up the discussion when the issue of #4 was
decided.
I wrote an Insight to the BOE on June 7, 2004 detailing and
responding to Cameron's letter and for the BOE to accept
the conditions of the compromise.
The district's attorney, the city attorney and Ridgeview
signed this agreement.
At this point that agreement is still in place. The
meeting on Monday, February 27, 2006 will be addressing #5
and #6 on Cameron's letter. Issue #4, in my opinion, is
not relevant to this discussion. The criteria (code
requirement) for the initial agreement between the
professional building and the original owner of the
Ridgeview site is no longer in affect. Further, the parking
issues are not tied to any neighborhood issues; nor is
there any proof that there is a parking issue between these
two entities. There appears to be sufficient parking for
the professional building.
So, I have those documents; Cameron's letter, my Insight
and the agreement. Plus, my recollections. If you need me
to FAX these, I will.
Thanks,
Bill
William S. Franzen
Executive Director of Operations
wfranzen@psdschools.org
Poudre School District, Ft. Collins, CO
Shelby Sommer - Ridgeview Discussior ,ith�PBD June 2004� - Page-1
From: William Franzen <wfranzen@psdschools.org>
To: <jjg1973@aol.com>, <ssommer@fcgov.com>
Date: 02/23/2006 3:54:05 PM
Subject: Ridgeview Discussion with PSD - June, 2004
1 received a request from both of you regarding the Board
of Education minutes from June, 2004 where the Ridgeview
Classical School addition was discussed.
I contacted Deb Hackney, BOE Secretary, for a copy of any
minutes that may have been kept on Ridgeview from that time
period. There wasn't information shared with the BOE
during a regular meeting other than a legislative update on
charter schools where Ridgeview was mentioned.
Since I would have been the one to inform the BOE on the
status of the Ridgeview addition discussions, I'll have to
surmise how the BOE was updated.
I have in my files a copy of a letter from Cameron Gloss,
Director of Current Planning, dated May 24, 2004. In
summary it discussed the consideration by the P&Z of the
Ridgeview addition. The P&Z can only "review and comment"
on the planper CRS 22-32-124. The response from Ridgeview
was not satisfactory and the P&Z exercised the option, by
statute, to ask for a decision by the BOE. It went on to
recite six points of contention.
I discussed the points with Cameron by phone and suggested
that the option to defer to the BOE had been too hasty and
that it required additional dialogue between the P&Z and
Ridgeview.
There was one outstanding issue regarding the parking
agreement between the Stuart Professional Building and
Ridgeview that had not been resolved.
They state statute process is tied to a 30 day turn around
and it was evident that the parking issue (which was not
relevant to the P&Z decision) would not be answered in that
time period. The other issues on Cameron's letter were:
1. Building size - miscalculated by City and the comment
was mute.
2. Architectural comment - P&Z can only comment on
architectural content and is not bearing on a decision.
3. Conversion of Lemay from right in/right out to turn
lane was proposed by the city and denied by P&Z. So,
this became an internal city issue and again mute.
4. The parking agreement between the professional building
and Ridgeview.
5. Size of school - Not resolved.
6. Size of school - Restatement of 5.
In the interim I suggested a hold on all activity to allow
Ridgeview to work through #4 and for the City to be held
harmless for the necessity to respond in 30-days.