Loading...
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.