Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1990 - SPECIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - 14-88A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO APPLICANT (2)Developme Services • Planning Department Citv of Fort Collins May 10, 1989 Dr. Lee Hansen Superintendent of Schools Poudre School District 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Dr. Hansen, On April 26, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins disapproved the site development plan for the Elementary School 1990. The members of the Board cited the lack of adequate street and sidewalk access to the site as their reason for disapproval. The action by the Planning and Zoning Board in disapproving the school site will require an overruling by the School Board by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership in accordance with C.R.S. 31-23-209. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Board requests a public hearing before the Board of Education relating to the proposed site location and site development plan. The Planning Board would like the opportunity to express their concerns directly to the members of the School Board and public. Please let me know as soon as possible when this public hearing is scheduled. I have attached, for your information, a copy of the meeting of the Planning and Zoning questions, please feel free to call me. Z Planning Director of the staff report and minutes Board. If you should have any (303) 221-6750 ,00 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • r • • ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1990 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW - #14-88A Joe Frank gave a description of the proposed site plan. George Galida, Poudre R-1 Construction Manager, briefly discussed the design of the building, the student capacity, square footage, parking, masonry construction, and height of the building. Mr. Frank gave the staff report recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board convey to the School District disapproval of the site development plan because of the lack of street improvements and sidewalks to the school site. He added that staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board request a hearing with the members of the Board of Education to express a concern regarding missing street improvements. The action of disapproval would require an overruling of the School Board by a vote of not less than 2/3 of their members. Member Kern asked what discussion have taken place between the City and the School District and what has been proposed. Mr. Frank replied that the City approached the School District and the property owners to the east of the proposed site to discuss street improvements as part of the City Capital Improvement project at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. He added that some issues have arisen with the School District regarding oversizing and whether the City would recapture the cost for the School District if they install off -site streets. He added that the settlement was that the City ould recapture the local portion of the improvements as adjacent property develops. The City agreed to recapture costs to the extent that the City Code would allow. The City was unwilling to pay oversizing as long as the School District was unwilling to pay oversizing fees. Mr. Frank stated that under State statutes, the City had a limited ability to require the School District to improve streets. Member Shepard asked if the City's position was that Horsetooth Road had to be improved four lanes from the intersection of Taft Hill west to the school site. Mr. Herzig stated that it was planned to be four lanes westbound to Overland Trail. He stated that the City's project would build four lanes plus left turn lane then taper into what is existing. The School District is only obligated to build a 36 foot street. He stated that the School District was only being asked to build a 36 foot local street with a base arterial standard. Member Shepard asked if the School District was ineligible for any oversizing repayments because they did not pay any development fees. Mr. Herzig replied that what they are not eligible for repayment for oversizing since they were unwilling to pay into the fund. They are eligible for repayment for the local street portions that a developer is obligated to construct. Mr. Galida stated that the project that the Board had authorized the School District to receive bids on did not include any street construction including the local street that would be in front of the school site. Member Burns asked if there would be sidewalks constructed in front of the school. Mr. Galida replied that the plan they presently have only included construction on the property. The sidewalk in front of the school on the east property line would be included in the project that is being bid now but the construction would end at the sidewalk. He added that there is no street construction planned in this project. Chairwoman O'Dell asked where the construction vehicles would drive with only a field existing. Mr. Galida stated that the construction vehicles would be driving across the existing field. Member Klataske asked what would happen with overflow parking when extra -curricular activities would be going on at the school. Mr. Galida replied that the parking lot that would be constructed would not be large enough for that kind of circumstance. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if parking would be allowed on the street south of the site. Mr. Frank replied that there would be on -street parking. Roger Popp, adjacent resident, had concerns with how this property fits in with a master plan and how this collector street connected to the north. Mr. Frank responded that there was a master plan of about 40 acres, bounded on the south by Horsetooth and Taft Hill on the east, that was approved approximately one year ago called the Harmony West Master Plan. This plan was mixed use and showed the collector street extending north. Mr. Popp asked if any of the streets in the mixed use area connected with the adjacent properties outside of the master plan. Mr. Frank replied that the plan did include street extensions to the north. Member Klataske asked if the collector street would eventually connect with Moffett Street to the north. Mr. Frank stated that it was not planned to align with Moffett Drive. Member Kern moved to disapprove the site development plan for Elementary School 1990 citing the traffic issues identified by staff and requested a hearing with the School District. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Kern commented that it was discouraging to see this response so soon after the School Board agreed to try and foster communication and participation between the district and the city. Member Shepard commented that the School District should not bid this project without plans for construction of a collector street and that it was irresponsible of the School District to drive construction vehicles across the existing field. r • • Chairwoman O'Dell commented that she concurred with Member Kern and that she wished the School District would consider the safety of the children that would attend this school. Motion to disapprove the site development plan passed 5-0. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.