Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAKWOOD SCHOOL NCL SITE PLAN REVIEW - 13 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMr. Smith replied it seemed to him that they were fencing off the driveway and that was permanent as far as they were concerned and they would be in violation of the site plan if they did use it as a driveway. They would rather leave it there because of the expense of taking it out. Member Cottier stated that it was one feature that could really improve the site if they could tear out the driveway and add some plantings to buffer them from the neighborhood. Mr. Smith replied that it could be done in the future, it was just to limit expense right now, They are putting a buffer in on the west side of the building and pointed it out on the site plan. Vice Chairman Carroll stated that if a motion for approval were made on this item, #14 of the site plan needed to be clarified as to how long it would be. Member Strom moved for approval of Oakwood School - NCL Site Plan Review. He thought it was a very good readaptive use for this building. He thought that the applicants had worked to resolve all the concerns that the neighbors have. He added the condition that they clarify the question of limiting parking on the west side of McKinley to provide adequate pickup and drop off area during school hours and also, not a condition of approval, but that they encourage the City Transportation Department to look at the possibility of a school zone on Mountain Avenue. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion and stated that the school zone did not have to be flashing yellow, there were also signs of school designation without lights and would leave it up to the Transportation Department to research and choose which one would be adequate. She would also like to encourage the school to always be aware that they live in the neighborhood and encouraged the neighborhood to go to the school first if there is a problem as to create a neighborly relationship. Member Cottier stated she would support the motion. She thought this use would improve the appearance of the site with the landscaping and street trees. She did hope that after they have been in operation for a while, that they will consider tearing out the driveway. The motion passed 6-0. Vice Chairman Carroll informed the audience that two of the items would be continued until the May 3, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. These items would be the Fox Creek P.U.D. - Preliminary and The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD - Preliminary. Member Strom moved for continuation of the projects mentioned . Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. COLLINDALE BUSINESS PARK - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval. Steve Pfister, Real-Tec Commercial Real Estate, stated they have presented this Overall Development Plan because of Phase 6 and issues brought up at Conceptual Review. Issues of circulation and the extension of Automation Way and extension of utilities in the area and it 11 parking. There was no policy that says they need to provide on street parking for all special occasions. Member O'Dell commented that all elementary schools in the district have the same situation and it was not a problem, it just happens for a couple of hours and then they are gone. R.D. Lakin, resident, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and there was one night of the year, every year, that they have a parking problem. Somehow they survive it and could abide by it. Eileen Gabler, lives kitty corner to the school, had not heard numbers that relate to the number of people that attended the congregation when it was a church as opposed to the school. The congregation had quite a few cars parking. They were encouraged to use the border of City Park rather than clog up McKinley. Maybe if the school had some recommendation they could do that. Oak Street was basically two blocks over and it would seem to be a good solution. Mr. Smith replied that the church had a congregation of 150 people that met weekly. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of the issues on the loading zone on McKinley Avenue and where the rental property was that was using all the parking on McKinley Drive. Mr. Smith replied that the loading zone was the area all along McKinley from Mountain Avenue to the alley. There would be no parking along McKinley on the west side. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a concern about the east side of McKinley. Mr. Smith replied that they did not affect the east side. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the rental property and the parking situation. Gail McMahon pointed out the rental property on the map and pointed out where the rental cars were parking. She stated that the corner lots on Oak Street were also using it for parking. Ms. McMahon stated that there was only room for one car to travel when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Member Cottier asked if no parking from Mountain to the alley would be during school hours. Ms. Whetstone stated that was her understanding and it could be put on the site plan that way and what she was hearing was that it would be signed and striped to the alley and that would be during certain hours during school. Member Cottier stated that would be adequate and it was not this property's concern to provide an on street parking space for the rental across the street. Mr. Smith added that one thing about having a small school was the communication with the parents and if it is a problem, they would ask the parents not to park there. Member Cottier asked Mr. Smith to comment on the issue of tearing out the drive way on the west side. 10 Mr. Smith replied there would be some noise from children, there always is. He stated they could not guarantee they would be absolutely quiet. The main play area would be City Park. They also have a gymnasium in the building. This area would be for a little exercise, a few minutes of fresh air. Fred Zipp, 1415 West Mountain, stated his main concern was traffic. He thought the school zone should be resolved. He also had concerns with parking at school events and the proposed bike way down Mountain Avenue. Mr. Zipp asked Mr. Smith if the whole alley would be paved. Mr. Smith replied that it was the width of their property. Mr. Zipp thought that a lot of the traffic issues were speculative at this point and no one really knows for sure since they did not know what would be happening with the bikeway at this point and wanted to voice his concerns about traffic flow in the area. Vice Chairman Carroll asked that the traffic issue be addressed. Ms. Whetstone stated that Staff did request a traffic study because of concerns voiced at a neighborhood meeting. Matt Delich, 3413 Banyon Avenue, Loveland, stated he did the traffic study on this. Vice Chairman Carroll asked about the impact of traffic on Mountain Avenue and McKinley. Also, about the proposed bikeway down Mountain Avenue and the impacts it would have. Mr. Delich replied that the volumes on Mountain Avenue was the only street they have counts on. They do not have counts on McKinley, it is a very light traveled street. Traffic volumes on Mountain, just to the west of Shields, were at about 2400 per day, which is very light travel. If you reduce it to one lane in both directions it would still remain at level A. The gaps would tighten up some, but the level would stay at A. This school would add traffic to both Mountain and McKinley and the street could handle it and the service would still stay in service level A through most of the day. Member Clements -Cooney stated that one of the residents was given the information that Mountain Avenue was operating at Level C, and was he saying that was not correct, that it was at Level A. Mr. Delich replied that the section of street west of Shields was at A for this volume of traffic. Member Clements -Cooney asked about parking along Mountain Avenue. Mr. Dclich replied that he did not address that in his work. Vice Chairman Carroll stated there were other uses in the City where on an occasional day, the volume of parking exceeded what was normally there. Were there any policies on that in the City. Ms. Whetstone replied that a use, especially a P.U.D. use would provide for off-street parking for the required guidelines for the number of employees. The school was trying to work with carpooling and on event nights could suggest they park at City Park where there was public 9 Ms. McMahon stated that she was under the impression that the intersection of West Mountain and Shields was one of the most dangerous in the City. Traffic was one of her concerns. She talked with the Transportation Department this week and was told that the traffic on West Mountain was given a grade for traffic during peak hours and the grade given was C. She hoped they took the traffic situation under their thought process. Ms. McMahan asked about the project to close one lane of traffic on each side of Mountain to develop it into a bike lane and how would that impact the traffic in addition to the school on Mountain Avenue. Mr. Smith replied that he had asked the traffic engineer that did the traffic study that very question and the traffic engineer could not see an impact at all. Steve Mork, property owner to the west of the proposed school. His concerns were the road directly west of the building and he saw the fence as being a temporary fixture and at some time it could be taken down and the road could be used at some other point in time. He would want in some form of writing, that it could not be used for this sort of purpose. His other concern was noise with the children using that area as a play area. They have two dogs and was concerned with them barking. He would like to see more buffering in that area. They have agreed to a schedule where they were aware of when the children were out, they could bring the dogs in. That was a bare minimum he could live with and he was in the neighborhood before the school. Vice -Chairman Carroll pointed out the site plan on the board and stated that the site plan approved by the Board would become City record, which would control this plan. If any change were to be made to that, they would have to come back to the Planning and Zoning Board for that. He stated it would be up to the neighbors to report any violations of the site plan. Member Cottier asked Mr. Mork if he would support removing the drive way and have it made lawn in front. Mr. Mork replied that was what he had requested. His understanding was that because of financial considerations, it was not being considered. He would give up a pad in his front yard that they park their car on to see the road removed. Ms. Whetstone pointed out a note on the site plan, #13, stating the drive -way would be permanently disabled. Ted Rosin, lives 3 doors down to the west. He thought that it should be mandatory that the drive way be removed and shrubs planted there to keep out the noise. There needed to be a buffer zone between the school and the neighbors. Mr. Rosin asked about paving the alley and that was a concern with the neighbors down the road in that the alley would be used to drop the kids off or used as a shortcut to get out and they would have increased traffic down the alley. Mr. Smith stated that the traffic flow down the alley would be prohibited and they were paving the alley because it was a requirement of the City. Mr. Rosin asked what the difference was between an exercise area and a play area. 9 Another issue was the current property has a drive way that goes along the west side of the property. They proposed to fence that off, it was very important that it become permanently disabled. They were a little worried that if a fence goes up and in five years it comes down, they can start using the drive way again. They were also concerned about whether there would be any outside play or not. On the original proposal they stated there would be none. The plan they saw a couple of weeks ago showed that the fenced area may be used for some kind of play area and they would like the applicant to elaborate on that. As far as the school zone, it would be a nice plus for them. He thought it would be a plus for the whole neighborhood. Something to call attention to the commuters, particularly the morning and afternoon commuters that are in a hurry to get home, and it would be good to have a reminder that it was a neighborhood and there was a school there. Vice Chairman Carroll asked Ms. Whetstone to address the issues of McKinley being proposed as a drop point. Ms. Whetstone replied that on the site plan it was being shown as a drop off point. Vice Chairman Carroll asked if someone wanted to add parking spaces to that and eliminate part of it as a drop off point, what would they do. Ms. Whetstone replied she had talked to Transportation about it and they indicated that it was something they would be willing to do, to stripe it and sign it "no parking" between certain hours. That idea had been accepted by Transportation and if someone wanted to change that it would be in violation of the site plan. Vice Chairman Carroll asked if it was the same for the fence on the west driveway. Ms. Whetstone replied that was true, if someone was to remove the fence on the west driveway and were using it. It would be up to the neighborhood to let them know that happened. Just about any use on this site, except for single family use would basically, for the same reasons, not be allowed to have the driveway. It would be a requirement of the site plan. Vice Chairman Carroll asked the applicant to address the outdoor play area. Mr. Smith replied that they decided to fence it off and use it as a designated outdoor area for the children. It would not be a play area. It would be used to plant things and maybe have some picnic tables out there during the spring. Children may be going out during the day just for a little exercise. There would be no equipment. Gail McMahon, 1319 West Mountain, stated her concerns about the school were the night functions and the parking for parents. Mr. Smith replied they had discussed that with both the City and at the neighborhood meeting and what they came up with was that anybody could have a party and have the same number of cars. They plan on having three functions per year at night. Ms. McMahon stated that there was a lot of on street parking in this neighborhood and there was a rental property on McKinley and they needed to park on McKinley. She thought they would end up with more that three functions per year. 7 Ms. Whetstone replied that she was not sure who has the final authority. If you requested that they have a school zone it may be that transportation would say they can't do that. She thought that if it was possible for them to put a school zone in they would. Member Clements -Cooney asked how much walking traffic they would have. Mr. Smith replied that in the enrollment so far, about 20% would be walking and they would also encourage children to ride their bikes to school and also carpooling. Member Cottier asked if there was a space for bike racks. Mr. Smith pointed the bike racks out on the site plan. PUBLIC INPUT Mike Vogel, supported the project and stated that two years ago he lived two doors down from the subject property. He was not trying to speak for the neighborhood or speak down to the neighborhood. He was aware and has a sense of the kind of impacts of the neighborhood that occur. He lived there when the subject property was a church with an active congregation. He has a fondness of the neighborhood and an interest in seeing it protected and well maintained. Mr. Vogel stated that his son was a student of the applicant and they were excited to see that Oakwood was going to happen. He wanted to reassure the neighbors if they have any remaining concerns about the fact that he thought this was a very compatible use for the property. Mr. Vogel thought that the education received at Oakwood was very rooted in respect. His experience with Mr. Smith and the curriculum that he has taught in the past and expect him to provide in the future was one that very strongly emphasizes environmental awareness and responsibility. He also thought the school being located by City Park would enhance the outdoor activities for both the school and the neighborhood. R.D. Lakin, has lived in the area for 25 years. He thought the traffic issue was an insignificant item and that a couple of signs on each side of the street would be adequate. With the children being close to the park for outdoor activities, he could not think of a better place for a community based school. Ron Steinbach, representing the City Park Neighborhood Association, 1345 West Mountain. He stated that this was the first significant change that has taken place in their neighborhood since the adoption of the N-C-L zone. He stated they did have some long term concerns that regardless who owns the property over the next 15 to 20 years, that whatever was decided here tonight, that they could count on that what the Board agrees on tonight was locked in and with a change of ownership they would not have to fight the same issues again. They generally support the project, but there were two issues. One was a traffic issue and the other was the impact on the property owners directly to the west of the site. He thought the traffic issue of concern was the McKinley dropoff. Having lived through a number of Sunday's there, a loading zone, a no parking zone the length from Mountain to the alley is critical for safety because the width of the road was not adequate to have cars parked on both sides and having parents letting children off in the middle of the street. 6 Mr. Smith talked about the school, the classroom size and that they have responded and acted on the neighborhood concerns. They have talked to the neighbors and the Neighborhood Association and the Board should have a copy of their letter supporting the project. They would be improving the landscaping of the site, they would be paving the alley, they had done a traffic impact analysis that revealed very little traffic impact on the neighborhood. They would institute a carpooling plan and they have staggered departure times to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. They would apply for a school zone on Mountain Avenue and also have a no parking area on McKinley Avenue. Mr. Smith stated they have talked to many of the neighbors in the area and believed there was hope for the school in the neighborhood when they find that the school is concerned with the neighborhood. Member O'Dell asked about encouraging car pooling and staggering the starting times of classes and what if someone has more than one child at the school. Mr. Smith replied that they were staggering the departure times, not the starting times. The times were staggered by 10 minutes. Member O'Dell asked if the parents would park and come in the building or were they discouraging that and asking them to stay outside. Mr. Smith replied that they would be encouraging parents to drop off the children on McKinley Avenue and then just drive on. That is the loading and drop off area. Member Cottier asked about them applying for a school zone designation and who they were applying for that from. Mr. Smith replied from the Traffic Department. Member Cottier asked if it would be for both Mountain and McKinley. Mr. Smith replied for Mountain Avenue only, and that was by the recommendation of the neighbors. Member Cottier asked if there would be flashing yellow lights or just a sign that just says "school". Mr. Smith replied they would like to have the flashing lights but that would be up to the Traffic Department. Member Cottier asked if there would be a flashing yellow lights for a school zone, would it be on both sides of Mountain or just on the south side. Ms. Whetstone replied that typically they were on both sides of the street, and she did not know the chances of them getting a signal with it being a small school. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was anyone who could answer that here tonight being this was a final. Mr. Les Kaplan, developer of the project, stated this was a lower density, mixed residential use. They have patio homes on the west side of the first phase which was a buffer between them and Dakota Ridge and the high school. The balance of the first phase, 17 acres, was the same land use configuration that they have in the second filing. Mr. Kaplan stated the lowering of the density was not a major objective of changing the overall development plan. He talked about the master plan, the density of the project and configuration of future single and multi -family phases. Member Clements -Cooney stated there was a request for a variance from the absolute requirement that the density be a minimum of 3 d.u./per acre on a gross acreage basis. Was any other configuration considered to meet the requirement. Mr. Kaplan stated that the objective of the project was urban size lots bordering green belts. The lots were the same size, maybe a little bigger in 2nd filing as in the 1st. He stated that the lots from the 1st filing and the lots in the 2nd filing were linked together by the greenbelt and what they had is kind of a curvlinear park which surrounds the lots. PUBLIC INPUT Dick Chin, lives on the corner of County Road 9 and Horsetooth. He spoke in favor of the project and the urban size lots and would like to see a lower density to blend in with the acreages that have homes on out there already. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member O'Dell stated she also was concerned about the lowering of the density and thought there was a trend being established and this was an example of what going on around the City. She thought overall this development did meet the criteria of the 3 du/per acre. Member O'Dell moved for approval of Stoneridge Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Member O'Dell moved for approval of Stoneridge PUD, 2nd filing, Preliminary and Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. OAKWOOD SCHOOL N-C-L SITE PLAN REVIEW. FINAL - #13-93 Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval. Victor Smith, applicant, stated they were planning on having a small school of 60-75 students. They thought the impact on the neighborhood would be positive. They were interested in fitting in the neighborhood and being a part of the neighborhood. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD n MEETING MINUTES April 26, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The April 26, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Rene Clements -Cooney, Jim Kiataske, Bernie Strom, and Jan Cottier. Chairman Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item I - Minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting; Item 2 - Ranchway Feeds Bin Renovation PUD - Preliminary and Final, #14-93; Item 3 - Spradley Barr Isuzu - Non Conforming Use Request - #16-93; Item 4 - Harmony Market PUD, 5th Filing - Preliminary and Final, #54-87G; Item 5 - Oakridge PUD, Block One, Lot One - Final, #13-82BD; Item 6 - Dakota Pines PUD - Preliminary and Final, #60-91 F; Item 7 - McIntosh PUD - Preliminary and Final, #12-93; Item 8 - Best Western Transmissions PUD - Preliminary and Final, #15-93; Item 9 - Stoneridge Amended Overall Development Plan, 021-92B; Item 10 - Stoneridge PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final, #21-92E; Item I I - East Vine Streets Facility Amended Overall Development Plan, #30-91; Item 12 - East Vine Streets Facility, Phase 1 - Final, #30-91B; Item 13 - Windemere Professional Park Subdivision - Final, #50-83C; Item 14 - Greenstone PUD, 1st Filing - Final, #54-92D, Item 15 - Greenstone PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #54-92E; Item 16 - Linden Ridge Ist Filing - Preliminary - County Referral, #21-93; Item 17 - Pineview PUD, Tract C, Preliminary - Extension Request, #76-81D; Item 18 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 19 - Blue Spruce Farm Annexation Amendment, #33-87B Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 20 - Oakwood School - NCL Site Plan Review; Item 21 - Collindale Business Park - Overall Development Plan, #7-82D; Item 22- Timberline Storage PUD - Preliminary and Final, #7-82E; Item 23 - Fox Creek PUD - Preliminary, #5-93B, Continued until the May 3, 1993 P & Z Meeting Item 24 - Shopko PUD - Final, #1-93A; Item 25 - The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD - Preliminary, #146-79N, Continued until the May. 3, 1993 P & Z Meeting. Staff pulled Item 4 for discussion. Member Clements-Cooncy pulled items 9 and 10 for discussion. Vice -Chairman Carroll asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to pull an item for discussion. There was no response. 1