HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 20-87A - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCITY OF FORT COLLINS
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 20, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Peterson, Planning Director
FROM: Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Direc o �
RE: Junior High School 1990 - Site De elo ment Plan - Special Review
#20-87A
The Staff has reviewed the proposed site development plan for the 1990
Junior High School and offers the following comments, findings and recom-
mendation:
PROJECT: Junior High School 1990 - Site Development Plan - Special Review
#20-87A
APPLICANT: Poudre School District OWNER: Same
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for a junior high school on
approximately 20 acres, located on the west side of Seneca Street, north of
Regency Drive, and zoned rlp, low density planned residential.
300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750
SERVICES, PLANNING
Junior High Sch*1990 •
1 Page 2
COMMENTS:
I. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; elementary school under construction (Johnson Elementary School)
S: RLP; vacant (proposed single family residences in the Regency PUD)
E: RLP; farmland (proposed residential uses in the Villages at Harmony
West)
W: RLP; vacant
The subject property was part of a larger development known as the Villages
at Harmony West PUD. The site was originally planned for patio homes and
multiple family units, but that phase of the overall preliminary plan expired a
few years ago. The property is zoned RLP, low density planned residential
with the condition that any development occur only as a PUD.
On May 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Master Plan for
the entire 30 acre site which also consisted of a site development plan for the
elementary school (Johnson). The Planning and Zoning Board indicated to the
School Board that the locations of the two schools were appropriate. However,
at that time the Planning and Zoning Board and Staff expressed considerable
concern regarding the need for the School District to more fully consider
additional access and future street improvements which would be necessary to
accommodate the expected traffic generated by the proposed junior high school.
Furthermore,- these issues were to be resolved during the detailed planning
phase (site development plan) of the junior high school. These concerns are
more fully addressed in the "traffic" section of this report.
2. Citv's Right of Review
State Statutes provide two specific references to the City's right of review in
the planning and location of school sites, as follows:
Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. as amended, addresses the right of the school
district to construct schools within a municipality and speaks to the extent
to which the municipality may control the location or manner of
construction of such schools. The statute (see attached) specifically limits
the municipalities' participation in the process to a limited right of review
and appeal to the Board of Education.
ii. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. (attached) provides that no public building shall be
constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character and extent
hereof has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Junior High Sch*1990 •
Page 3
Under Section 31-23-209 C.R.S. the Planning and Zoning Board is obligated to
make finding as to the location, character and extent of the public building
and structure relative to the adopted Master Plan of the City. Such findings
are made in order that the proposed site and structures shall conform to the
adopted plan of the community.
In addition, Section 22-32-124 C.R.S. calls for the Planning and Zoning Board
to review and comment upon the site development plan for the proposed school
site and, if it desires, "request a public hearing before the board of education
relating to the proposed site location or site development plan" prior to any
construction of structures or buildings. In addition, the Board may review the
details of the site development plan itself. Lastly, staff believes that the School
District is responsible for any impact fees or public improvements to the extent
reasonably necessary to offset the impact of the new school, including, but not
limited to, development fees, street and utility requirements, and off -site
improvements.
We view these laws as both compatible and complimentary. Both statutes
clearly extend to the City the opportunity to review, comment and making
finding upon the site development plan prior to construction of any structure
thereon.
Consequently, the City cannot apply the requirements and criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System in their review of the proposed junior high
school. Furthermore, the City's Division of Building Inspection will not be
issuing permits for construction but will be available for inspection at the
request of the Division of Labor and will apply the standards of the Industrial
Commission of Colorado in its inspection of the school. Some additional items
which the School District is considered not responsible for include plan
processing fees, building permit fees, PUD and zoning requirements,
subdivision, storm drainage requirements, building codes and submittal of a
Development Agreement.
As mentioned above, the Planning and Zoning Board has approved the location
of the junior high school. However, the Board may still review the details of
the site development plan as to its character and extent of impact on
surrounding properties and public services and facilities.
3. Land Use
Public schools are considered to be an appropriate use in the RLP, low density
planned residential district. The proposed junior high school is compatible
with existing and future residential land uses in the area.
Junior High Sch4O 1990 •
` Page 4
4. Design
The school will be approximately 111,000 square feet in floor area and will
accommodate approximately 750 students. Approximately 100 parking spaces
have been provided for employee and visitor usage. Separate auto and bus
drop-off lanes have been provided. Public sidewalks have been installed along
Seneca Street. In addition, sidewalks are being provided between the street and
building at various locations throughout the site.
The junior high school will be one-story, or approximately 15 feet in height,
with the exception of the gymnasium, which will be approximately 30 feet in
height. The exterior materials of the structure will be brick and block
masonry in two -tones. The masonry will be predominantly red and buff
colored.
Between the elementary and junior high schools, are planned open areas to be
used for soccer, football and baseball fields.
Landscaping is being provided along Seneca Street and interior to the site. A
six foot high security fence will be provided along the west property line.
The staff believes that the design as proposed is of high quality, is compatible
with the new elementary school, and will set a good example for future
development in the area.
5. Traffic Concerns
Traffic Study
As part of the "master plan" that was reviewed in 1987, the School District
prepared a Traffic Study (see attached), that analyzed the impact of the
combined elementary/ junior high school site. Some general conclusions of the
study are as follows:
i. Approximately 1600 trips per day will be generated for the 180 day school
year (September - May).
ii. Some improvements at the Shields/Harmony intersection are warranted to
improve the flow of traffic.
iii. In the short term, access to the school sites from Seneca Street via Regency
Drive and Wakerobin Lane will be adequate. In the long term, the connec-
tion of Seneca to Horsetooth Road and the construction of Troutman Park-
way between Seneca and Shields will provide "excellent" access to the site.
Junior High Sch* 1990 .
' Page 5
iv. In the long term, signals will be required at the intersections of
Horsetooth/Seneca and Troutman/Shields.
The School District has constructed Seneca Street to collector standards as it
abuts the school sites; Regency Drive to collector standards between Seneca
Street and Wakerobin Lane, and; Wakerobin Lane to local street standards
between Regency and the existing portions of Wakerobin Lane. In addition,
the property owners south of the school site have constructed Regency Drive
between Wakerobin Lane and Harmony Road to collector street standards.
Analysis
t•
During the consideration of the Master Plan and site development plan for the
elementary school site, the staff and Board expressed concern regarding
vehicular and pedestrian access to the future junior high school. While the
improvements to Seneca St., Wakerobin Lane, and Regency Drive were adequate
to handle the short term requirements of the elementary school, the Board and
staff recognized that additional study was needed to determine the traffic
impacts of the future junior high school. The demands of a junior high school
are much different and much more intensive than those of an elementary
school.
Subsequently, the Staff's of both the City and School District met on several
occasions to discuss these issues. However, no satisfactory agreement has been
arrived at. Rather, the following concerns remain unresolved:
a. Access. The staff does not agree with the findings of the Traffic Study
that adequate access to the junior high school can be provided from Shields
Street via only Wakerobin Lane and Regency Drive. Furthermore, the staff
does not agree with the study when it indicates that access from Horsetooth
Road via Seneca Street "is least acceptable considering street construction,
anticipated school service area and ease of access".
In our evaluation of the operation of the proposed junior high school,
Wakerobin Lane and Regency Drive alone will not provide efficient nor safe
accessway to the school site. In reviewing the 1990 service areas for the junior
high school, approximately 70 - 75% of the driving, walking and bicycling
traffic will be generated from destinations north, northeast and northwest of
the school site. Students living within 1.5 miles of the school will be required
to walk, bicycle or be transported to school by private automobiles. Students
living outside of this area will be bused. This traffic will use Shields Street as
the major route to the junior high school.
Wakerobin Lane is located approximately 4000 feet south of the Horsetooth
Road and is an inconvenient and protracted route to the school site. Wakerobin
Lane was planned and designed as a local residential street providing driveway
Junior High Sch*1990
Page 6
•
entrances to abutting homes and residences. Wakerobin Lane was never
intended to serve the more intensive traffic carrying and bicycle/walking
function that the School District is now proposing.
In addition, extensive portions of Shields Street between Wakerobin Lane and
Horsetooth Road are not fully improved to arterial standards and do not have
adequate bicycle or pedestrian facilities to reasonably and safely accommodate
the traffic generated by the junior high school.
Therefore, the impacts of allowing the junior high school to be completed
without adequate access are:
i. A large portion of the student and bicycling population will have no other
alternative than to travel to and from school on unimproved routes.
ii. As a result, a larger number of students will be transported to school in
private automobiles beyond that normally expected of junior high schools;
iii. And, as past experience has shown, parents will be very concerned about
who is responsible for providing a safe route to school and the City and
the School District will end up in the center of the controversy.
The staff realizes that the properties surrounding the proposed school sites will
eventually develop and that the School District should not be burdened with
constructing the entire neighborhood street system. However, the School
District has responsibility for assuring that students, faculty and parents have a
safe way to school. Likewise, the City recognizes its responsibility to assure
that its public- facilities are adequate and safe to sustain the new schools
within fiscal, planning and time constraints.
Other alternative accessways have been identified which could provide relief,
for instance, the City's Master Street Plan indicates the future extension of
Seneca Street to Horsetooth Road, and; the extension of Troutman Parkway
between Shields Street and Seneca Street. These streets have been planned and
designed as collector streets and are intended to filter traffic and pedestrians
from abutting local residential streets and conduct this traffic to arterials or to
local generators such as schools and parks. The installation of either of these
road improvements needs to be given further consideration by both the City
and the School District as part of the development of the junior high school.
These issues need to be resolved at this stage of the planning process rather
than waiting until problems occur for either the City or the School District.
b. Off -site street improvements. Extensive portions of the surrounding street
system are missing necessary improvements including adequate street width;
pavement thickness; sidewalks, and; bicycle lanes. In order to fully analyze
the needed improvements in the area to accommodate the proposed junior high
school the following additional information is needed:
Junior High SchA01990 •
Page 7
i. Soils test on Shields Street from Wakerobin Lane to Horsetooth Road to
check for material thickness and structural strength.
ii. A recommendation from an engineering consultant on improvements needed
to carry additional traffic loading on Shields Street using 20 year design
life.
iii. Bus operation data i.e., number of buses each day with times and bus
routes anticipated.
This information has not been forthcoming. The staff believes that the full
impact of constructing the junior high without the provision of necessary
facilities is not fully understood. Without adequate and safe facilities, serious
safety problems will occur. Complete and adequate documentation has not been
provided to determine the extent of needed improvements, if any, to safely and
conveniently handle bus and vehicle traffic. And again, these issues need to be
resolved through a cooperative effort between the City and the School District
before construction of the junior high commences.
RECOMMENDATION
The construction of safe, economic, efficient and appropriately located public
schools are desires of both the School District and the City. Likewise, the City
and the School District share mutual goals of assuring that its public services
and facilities are adequate to serve the needs of its users.
The demand for more educational services and facilities is likely to increase as
our urban area expands, population increases, old facilities become outmoded
and public expectations rise. With the increasing demands placed upon public
budgets, intelligent planning of schools is essential. The partnership between the
District and the City grows more critical with each new student and each new
school.
These desires and goals have not been realized in the proposed junior high
school. Rather, serious access problems and street improvement issues remain
unresolved: A satisfactory agreement has not been achieved.
Clearly, the problems encountered with this school are not new but rather had
been identified during the planning process for other schools in the community.
And if these issues remain unsolved, same or similar problems are likely to
occur in the future. The staff believes that a lasting, mutually satisfying
agreement which anticipates and offers solutions to these issues needs to be
developed between the District and the City.
The Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board convey to the
School District the access, off -site improvements and sidewalks concerns
Junior High Sch*1990
Page 8
•
described herein. And, urge the School Board to join with the City to develop
a lasting agreement which offers solutions to problems such as these and others
that arise during the planning and development of school sites within the
community. Lastly, the Planning and Zoning Board should express their
encouragement, and full support for the successful and timely completion of
the negotiations that are currently underway between the School Board and the
City on these issues.
ITEM POUDRE R-1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
1990
NUMBER 20-87A
c
31-23-209 Government - Municipal 268
the territory affected and, after the approval by each body, shall be filed
with the county clerk and recorder of each county wherein the territory is
located.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1 148, § I.
31-23-209. Legal status of official plan. When the commission has
adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections
or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or
open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned
public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in
such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent
thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disap-
proval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's
governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a
recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership. If the
public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authoriza-
tion or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions
governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body,
the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having
jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled
by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its
membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from
and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148, § 1.
City in advisory role. There is nothing in
§ 31-23-206 and this section which indicates a
legislative intent to broaden a city's authority.
They place ultimate governmental authority
in matters pertaining to land use in unincor-
porated areas in the county. In effect, a city is
given only an advisory role. Robinson v. City
of Boulder, 190 Colo. 357, 547 P.2d 228
(1976).
Amendment to plan not subject to refer-
endum powers. Being advisory only, an
amendment to a municipal master plan is not
legislation which is subject to the referendum
powers reserved to the people. Margolis v.
District Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo. 1981).
31-23-210. Publicity - travel - information - entry. The commission has
power to promote public interest in and understanding of the plan and to
that end may publish and distribute copies of the plan or any report and
may employ such other means of publicity and education as it may deter-
mine. Members of the commission may attend city planning conferences,
meetings of city planning institutes, or hearings upon pending municipal
planning legislation, and the commission may pay, by resolution, the reason-
able traveling expenses incident to such attendance. The commission shall
recommend, from time to time, to the appropriate public officials programs
for public structures and improvements and for the financing thereof. It shall
be part of its duties to consult and advise with public officials and agencies,
public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other organiza-
tions, and with citizens in relation to protecting and carrying out the plan.
269 Planning and Zoning
within a reasonable length of time, such available information as the c
sion may require for its work. The commission and its members,
and employees, in the performance of their functions, may enter u
land and make examinations and surveys and place and maintain n
marks and monuments thereon. In general, the commission has sucl
as are necessary to enable it to fulfill its functions, to promote m
planning, or to carry out the purposes of this part 2.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148, § 1.
31-23-211. Zoning. Where a commission is established in I rda
the provisions of this part 2, it has and shall exercise all of t e po%
rights granted to the zoning commission by part 3 of this article. Wh
is a zoning commission in existence at the time that a commission is
the zoning commission shall deliver to the commission all of its rec(
shall thereafter cease to exercise the powers and prerogatives previou
cised by it; except that, if the existing zoning commission is nearing
tion of a zoning plan, the; governing body of the municipality may p
by resolution, the transfer of the zoning commission's powers until
tion of the zoning plan; but in no event shall the period of such postp
exceed six months from the date of the creation of the commission.
in this section shall invalidate or otherwise affect any zoning law o
tion or any action of the zoning commission adopted or taken pri(
creation of a commission.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1 149, § 1.
C.J.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corpora-
tions, § 672.
•
31-23-212. Jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction of any cor
over the subdivision of land includes all land located within the legal
ries of the municipality and, limited only to control with reference t(
street plan and not otherwise, also includes all land lying within th
of the boundaries of the municipality not located in any other mun
except that in the case of any such land lying within five miles
than one municipality, the jurisdiction of each commission shall t
at a boundary line equidistant from the respective municipal limit
municipalities. The jurisdiction over the subdivision of lands oil
boundary of a municipality shall apply equally to any municipality.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1149, § 1.
31-23-213. Scope of control. When a commission has adopted
street plan for the territory within its subdivision control, or any pat
as provided in section 31-23-208, and has fled a certified copy of
in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county in wl
. . . r 1 • • r 1 .. 1 .. .
s � a
22-32-124 Education 76 177 School District Boards - Powers and Duties 22-32-127
or other building beyond the territorial limits of the district Except in accord.
ance with the provisions of section 22-32-109 (1) (v).
Source: (2) amended, L. 75, p. 786, § 5; (1) amended, L. 77, p. 1050, § 2;
(2) amended, L. 79, p. 783, § 3.
22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning. (1) Prior to the acquisi-
tion of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of educa.
tion shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or
governing body if no planning commission exists, which has jurisdiction over
the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the
proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar
as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site develop-
ment plan for review and comment thereon to such planning commission
or governing body prior to construction of any structure or building. The
planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before
the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site develop-
ment plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the
hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide
written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or gov-
erning body. Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or con-
struction of any buildings thereon, the board of education also shall consult
with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine
subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suit-
ability of the site for its proposed use. All buildings and structures shall be
erected in conformity with the standards of the division of labor. Nothing
in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board
of education to finally determine the location of public schools within the
district and erect necessary buildings and structures.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8-1-107 (2) (d), C.R.S:,
upon request of the division of I*or after consulting with the affected board
of education, the appropriate building department of a county, town, city,
or city and county wherein a building or structure has been erected pursuant
to subsection (1) of this section may make the necessaryinspections to deter-
mine that such building or structure has been erected. in conformity with
the standards of the division of labor and, if such building or structure is
in conformity, shall issue the necessary certificate of occupancy prior to use
of the building or. structure by the school district. A fee may be charged
for such inspections upon approval of the board of education, if the amount
of the fee is determined on the basis of the direct cost of providing such
service. If the division of labor after consulting with the affected board of
education requests inspections by the building department, such inspections
shall be in lieu of any inspections made by the division of labor; except
that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to relieve the division of labor
of the responsibility to conduct such inspections if the appropriate county,
town, city, or city and county agency does not conduct the inspections. Any
county, town, city, or city and county conducting such inspections shall also
be authorized to annually reinspect the building or structure to assure that
it is maintained and operated in accordance with the fire code adopted by
the director of the division of labor. The inspecting entity shall cooperate
with the affected school district in carrying out the duties of this section.
(b) If the division of labor conducts the necessary inspection to determine
that a building or structure erected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section
has been erected in conformity with the standards of the division of labor,
it shall charge a fee of two hundred dollars for such inspection: Any fees
collected by the division of labor pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be
transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the public
safety inspection fund created pursuant to section 8-1-151, C.R.S.
(3) The county, town, city, city and county, or fire protection district
providing fire protection service for the buildings and structures of a school
district may annually inspect such buildings and structures to assure that
they are maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the directo-0
of the division of labor unless the board of education of the district has
contracted for such inspections to be conducted by a person qualified to
conduct such inspections by reason of experience, training, or certification.
Source: Amended, L. $1, p. 1064, § 1; (1) R & RE and (2) amended, L.
84, pp. 599, 600, § § 1, 2; (2) amended, L. 85, p. 338, § 6; amended, L.
869 p. 499, § 118.
22-32-125. Applicability of article.: ,
Repealed, L. 75, p. 788, § 13, effective July 1, 1975.
22 32-126. Principals - employment and authority.
Principal has the authority to adopt policies,
rules, and regulations to implement school
policy. DeKoevend v. Board of Educ., 653
P.2d 743 (Colo. App. 1982), rev'd on other
`rounds, 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984). .
The administrative responsibilities set forth
in this section could not be carried but if the
principal was unable to promulgate rules and
enforce them. DeKoevend v. Board of Educ.,
653 P.2d 743 (Colo. App. 1982), rev'd on
other grounds, 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
Principal has authority to supervise teachers.
Taking the steps necessary to supervise and
insure the effectiveness of teachers is within
the authority delegated to the principal by the
school board and thus constitutes a legitimate
exercise of his power. Thompson v. Board of
Educ., 668 P.2d 954 (Colo. App. 1983).
22-32-127. Leases or installment purchases for periods exceeding one year.
(1) (a) Whenever the term of an installment purchase agreement or a lease
agreement with an option to purchase under which a school district becomes
entitled to the use of undeveloped or improved real property or equipment
for a school site, building, or structure is greater than one year, the obligation
to make payments under the agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of
the district.
(b) Under any installment purchase agreement or under any lease or
rental agreement, with or without the option to purchase, or similar agree-
ment pursuant to which the subject real or personal property is used by the
school district for school district purposes, title shall be considered to have
Passed to the school district at the time of execution of the agreement for
Purposes of determining liability for or exemption from property taxation.
(2) No board of education shall enter into an installment purchase agree-
( went of the tvpe which constitutes an indebtedness unless such agreement