HomeMy WebLinkAboutELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1990 - SPECIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - 14-88A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMember Klataske
moved
to approve Woodlands
5th Filing, Preliminary Subdivision
with the recommendation
that this be in
compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations and
that the lot depth variance be approved. He added the condition
that a uniform
fence
be placed along the
back of the lots backing up to
Harmony Road.
Member
Shepard seconded the motion. Member Kern added the
condition that a
4 foot
fence be placed along
the detention pond if it is not in
conflict with the
FHA.
Motion to approve passed 4-0.
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 could
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.
-5-
0 i
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 West Master Plan. This plan was
mixed use and showed the collector street a tending north.
HOESETOOTH
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.
in
0
•
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.
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.
-7-