Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAUREL SCHOOL DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION ADVISORY REVIEW - 59 91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESt PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES • February 24,1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Members O'Dell and Klataske were absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbcck, Ted Shepard and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily corrects ince none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the December 16, 1991 and January 27, 1992 Meetings; Item 2 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 5th Filing, Ist Replat, Final, 035-86M; Item 3 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item 4 - South Fort Collins Veterinary Center PUD, Final, #46-91A; Item 5 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item 6 - Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD, Preliminary and Final, #28-89A; Item 7 - Duna Elementary School Addition/Remodel - Advisory Review, #3-92; Item 8 - Amendments to Larimer County Zoning Resolution - County Referral, #8-92; Item 9 - Cameron Park • Annexation and Zoning, #52-91A. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 10 - Laurel School Demolition and Reconstruction - Advisory Review, 059-91; Item 11 - Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary, #42-91A; Item 12 - Paragon Point PUD, Final, 048-91B; Item 13 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item 14 - Brittany Knolls PUD, 2nd Filing, Preliminary #21-83G. Mr. John Messineo pulled Item 6, Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD for discussion. Member Carroll moved for approval of Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD. Preliminary & Final. #28-89A Kirsten Whetstone gave the Staff report recommending approval. Member Carroll asked what was on the east side of the building. Ms. Whetstone replied that it was the Parks and Recreation drive -way and parking lot for the ballficlds, then there was the canal and Bryan Street and then on the east side of Bryan street the Housing Authority project, a multi -family project. Behind that east of the multi -family was single family. 41 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 5 Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. LAU EI ,:SEHfi)M DE14kiIOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION- ADVISORY REVIEWW. #59-91 Member Carroll indicated that because of the proximity (500 feet) of his home to the site he would excuse himself with a conflict of interest. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the Staff Report. George Galida, District Construction Manager for Poudre R-1 gave a presentation stating that this would be the first replacement school and would be funded out of the bond issue that was passed back in November of 1990. He stated that the uniqueness of this project as well as it being a replacement school was the previous planning that has gone into this. Back in 1990, the question that had arisen then was whether or not this school should be added on to, replaced, or whether they should be looking at possibly an addition at Barton School. Because of the strong support the school board derived from the neighborhood of these schools and especially around the Laurel School, the decision was made to go ahead with the replacement to the existing Laurel School. At that time there were numerous meetings with not only the parents, but other representatives in the neighborhood. That was how the decision was made for the replacement of Laurel School. He complimented the Staff in the worksession giving the Board a synopsis of what the project involved and he wanted to point out in reviewing their recommendation to go ahead with this project, there were three areas that needed to be addressed. The first being that it was advised that the final landscape plan include adequate landscaping and buffering of the existing homes on Colorado Street, to mitigate the playground area and the future access drive connecting Locust Court to Laurel Street. By shuffling in the last week, they were able to take that into account, it was brought up at the neighborhood meeting, and what they have proposed is shown on the site plan. They have changed the curvature of the access slightly, that provides for a 10 foot buffer zone along their property line. He also noted that along the west property line there was also a 10 foot easement that was an open space, so actually there is at least 20 feet from the edge of the driveway to the back yards of the residents along Colorado. The second item the Staff had under the recommendations was that "should Laurel Street become the primary access, the Board of Education consider constructing side walks on Laurel Street from Stover Street on the west to the Laurel Street access street on the east on both sides of the street to promote safe pedestrian travel". They would be willing to discuss and review this with the City Staff and the neighbors to make sure there are safe walk in routes. The third was that it was advised that "the Facilities Services Department of Poudre R-1 School District continue to work with the City of Fort Collins Departments of Planning, Transportation, Engineering and Parks and Recreation, Poudre Valley Hospital, and neighborhood residents on locational and transportation issues relating to the future neighborhood park, the Laurel Street to Pennock Street connection and the parking lot for the Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 6 Family Care Center. He stated they already have been in discussion with the hospital for quite some time now. The park planning in this area has been going on for several years and the Parks Department has been in touch with them at Poudre R-1 regarding these plans and have talked about numerous ideas that they have had. They would certainly invite the opportunity to go ahead and continue working that way. As far as working with Poudre Valley Hospital, they have been in discussion with them on the possibility of looking at some land swapping issues that may work out to both of their benefits as well as the neighborhoods in general and they will continue those discussions as well as looking at adjacent land uses to the school site and look at the possibility of trying to acquire additional property in the area for a school site with possible joint use by the park. He felt that the recommendations by Staff were certainly issues that were deserving of further consideration by the School District and they plan on doing that. Mr. Shepard clarified that the schematic drawing that they had here tonight was known as the B2 schematic and was slightly different that what was proposed and was at the neighborhood meeting a couple of weeks ago, in that the private connection drive from Locust Court to Laurel had been shifted. The schematic that was shown at the neighborhood meeting was hugging that west property line. There was a slight difference. Mr. Tom Skillman, 818 East Elizabeth, spoke in favor of the project and the conception. His concerns were that proper planning with all entities get put in place so this would be a great addition to the east side neighborhood. That the planning take place before any final decisions are made with the school and Poudre Valley Hospital and the key thing was the acquisition of some of the adjacent property that would really make this project fly. They want to have both the school and the park and they want to have the Poudre Valley parking needs taken care of and it can all work harmoniously in the area. He thought that they should eliminate any parking that is adjacent to residential areas so there would not be any additional pressure on the residential properties in the area. He thinks this is a great opportunity for the City of Fort Collins to get that neighborhood straightened out once and for all. Get Laurel Street straight on through to the shopping center like should have been done when they built the shopping center. Mr. John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street spoke about the Riverside Shopping Center and some of the traffic concerns and how changes needed to be made. He stated that one of the projects outlined in Choices 95 was a neighborhood park for the east side and it was desperately needed. It has been passed and funded and currently there has been no identified park site in the east side neighborhood. He joined the architectural committee of the parents, the administration and the staff to work on the site plan for the new Laurel School. As part of that process, he addressed the School Board and talked about the site plan and has also talked to them about the City's advisory review to the School Board. He stated the people in the East Side Neighborhood have several goals, one of which is to bring a quality new school to the neighborhood. He could speak for a majority of the people in the neighborhood when he asks that the Planning and Zoning Board get the connections of Pennock Place and Laurel Street. He also thought that the East Side Neighborhood believes very Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 7 strongly that a neighborhood park needs to be built. He mentioned that this school is on an 8.8 acre site and all the other schools built like this one are on at least a 10 or 11 acre site. He attended the worksession and a couple of things did not get said. The students that are attending Laurel School right now is approximately about 200 students. When the new school is built, they will be combining Laurel, Harris and some of the Barton school. These students will be bused either down Stover or Lemay to get the students to attend the new Laurel school. Another item was that alot of the areas immediately to the north of the school are in an existing flood plain. If you visualize the 8.8 acre site, the only place to put the school is where they saw it pictured, because if you go north, you literally dive into a flood plain, which would make construction of a school impractical unless they built it up above the flood plain standards. The problem with the site is that it is located within 18 feet of an existing junkyard. Also adjacent to the property is a facility that is used by US West. He would hope that as their lease expires they will look to relocate their facility. He viewed that as a real opportunity for the City of Fort Collins and, Poudre R-1 School District to find an existing piece of land that might be developed as part of an expanded school site to bring this site up to a 10 or 11 or 12 acre site. He thought this was going to have a great neighborhood impact from going to a school with 200 students to 550 students. There will be alot of traffic impact and when the Board looks at the designs you will note that at best, it is a flawed traffic design. He thought that the Planning and Zoning Board needed to advise the School Board on traffic impacts and that they needed to be revisited and a better plan could be thought out, if in fact we all work together to acquire additional land. He closed with stating that they had a good start and were looking for the Board's input and when this school opens in September of 1993 that they were not looking at an 8.8 acre site but rather a major redevelopment on the east side of Fort Collins. Bill Cramer, 1010 Morgan Street, voiced his concern on the schedule of the project. He did not feel that the planning process was firm enough to go ahead until such acquisitions of the land are made. He did not believe that all the ducks were in a row. He felt they had a good start and have a good concept. He would urge the Board to walk the land and take a look around at what they would see there. The neighborhood is in dire need of a park there. He felt there should be more land acquisition done before they take on the next step. Member Walker asked for information on issues around the land acquisition for parks and how has that evolved and where does it stand. Mr. Shepard replied it has been a long process. The East Side Neighborhood Park has been identified in the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan since 1974. It was also reemphasized and made a very important part of the East Side Neighborhood Plan which was passed in early 1986. It was also taken to the voters as part of the Choices 95 projects. It was a pretty firm commitment on the part of Parks and Recreation to purchase a park site in this neighborhood. It was his understanding that some of the issues out there seem to be a willing seller situation and that offers have been made and offers have also been refused. The City of Fort Collins and the Parks and Recreation Department are very interested in purchasing a park in this area. The exact configuration and the exact amount of acreage and the exact parcels that will be purchased just have yet not been decided. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 8 Member Cottier asked if the School District considered trying to get additional acreage to add to their parcel. Mr. Galida replied that the School District is. They are working with Poudre Valley Hospital on a possible land swap so that not only will they pickup additional land to use but the location of the parcel will be more beneficial to both them and PVH and the neighborhood in general. Also, they are looking at acquiring additional property, namely looking at the junkyard property that was identified. They were in discussions with that right now and will continue to pursue that and will hopefully be able to acquire more property in the area. One other point that was made about the planning in general was that they started in 1990 with the planning for this project and what you see here are the schematic results of the work. They have gone through 15 or 20 generations of site plans, moving the building around on different parts of the site to try to find the most beneficial location and the most flexible location so that if Parks and Recreation does come across a park they want to put in, they can accommodate them and have an entire park/school use that can be used together. Member Cottier asked if the junkyard would be their major target. Mr. Galida replied it was, it is adjacent to the school property. They are concerned about environmental impact and they were beginning to look into them to see if there would be any cleanup involved. They have talked with the landowner and are trying to make some progress in that area. Member Cottier asked if the parking lot is in the same place as the existing parking lot. Mr. Galida replied yes. Member Cottier asked if it had been expanded considerably. Mr. Galida replied it was in the same location and he did not know the exact number of parking spaces there now, but it is not a considerable expansion if it is any expansion at all. Maybe from 45 to 60 cars. Chairman Strom asked if they had explored moving the parking lot. Mr. Galida replied, like he had said, they must have been through 15 or 20 generations of a site plan. They've had parking lots and buildings moved all over the 8.4 acre site in about every configuration they could think of. They have reviewed some of the plans with the City Planning Department as well as their parent group at the school and the staff at the school. They have had alot of meetings looking at various site plans. This option was the best option, that would not preclude them from pursuing any site acquisition or park development, yet would allow them to get the school in place as well. Chairman Strom asked in the course of their site planning effort and also forward from here, have they looked at and are they still looking at the possibility of taking their primary access off of Laurel Street in the event they have more land to work with. Mr. Galida replied, they had looked at several ideas on placing the school nearer to Laurel Street and taking the primary access off of Laurel Street in a couple of configurations. One Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 9 looking at it as if they had additional property. The reality of the situation is they don't have the property right now. The property owners along the stretch of property right now are located there, they don't have a large access point, they have a small access frontage along Laurel right now. They looked at different plans involving using that small access there on the present site plan, it's roughly 45 or 50 feet wide, enough to get a driveway access into the school site. Locating the parking area near that area did have some drawbacks. It places it a little bit further away from the school There is a change in grade between the school level and the parking lot then and would be faced with a series of steps or ramps up out of the parking lot as one option. Another would be that we change the grade in that area to build a parking lot up to the level of the school building, which is very costly and creates a problem with the storm drainage flow which goes down through that portion of the site. Member Walker stated from a City perspective the new school is a good opportunity for the neighborhood, however, going from 200 students to 500 students was a significant increase in the intensity of use on that site. What we're seeing with this proposal was essentially more or less the same size site. He had some concerns with that and the more intense use. The other thing was that the City has had a park acquisition in the works for a long time and it seems like this would be another opportunity for all these things to come together here. He thought there needed to be more aggressive pursuit of the additional property. He thought it was important that some of this property acquisition be dealt with. The whole issue of access for the site with the private drive to Laurel was O.K. and there was probably some better ways of addressing it, but obviously when you don't have the land you can't really plan for it and he would assume if there was more land acquired the whole circulation/access problem pattern would be different. Member Cottier thought it was a wonderful boon to the neighborhood to get a new school. She thought it could really help move toward some of the things the East Side Neighborhood Plan wanted. If was unfortunate that the timing did not fit and she thought the needs of the school might out weigh the benefits that could be gained by sitting and waiting until everything falls in place. She wished the parking area could have been moved, it would have enhanced the neighborhood residential areas. She thought they should go ahead with the school plans at this point. Chairman Strom agreed with thoughts that the school would benefit with more space, not only for recreational purposes but for circulation purposes. He was inclined to agree with Member Cottier and that his preferred approach would be to come down as hard as they can in favor of the City moving forward and the School District moving forward and pursuing additional space. He did not feel comfortable delaying the school in doing that. Member Walker recommended that this proposed plan for the school be sent forward with their approval. He thought there were certain things that ought to be highlighted as concerns. There were several in the Staff Report as to the final landscape plan addressing the landscaping mitigating the homes along Colorado and the future access drive connecting Locust Court and Laurel Street and addressing landscape issues there. Also, if Laurel Street should become the primary access, they get adequate sidewalks. Finally, all the entities should work together on this which would include the City of Fort Collins Planning, Transportation, Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments and the Hospital and the residents with the issues of the neighborhood park, the Laurel Street/Pennock Place connection, the hospital parking lot. One that he would add would be an attempt made by both the school and the City Planning & Zoning Board Minutes February 24, 1992 Page 10 to move forward aggressively on this acquisition of the parkland so that there would hopefully be some coordinated planning between to get all these things done. He agreed with the statements that the school should move ahead but wanted to see some of the other elements move ahead in some coordinated fashion together with the building of the school. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-0. BLEVINS SUBDIVISION. LOT 9 PUD - PRELIMINARY. #42-91A Member Carroll rejoined the meeting. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report and a slide presentation, recommending approval with conditions. Kint Glover, applicant, stated this duplex consists of two three -bedroom units with 5 parking spots on site with an optional sixth. He was sensitive to the parking issue as it relates to this project and he is basically indifferent as to whether there are five or six. There have been City studies that have been done that indicate that you need two parking spots per unit which would put this at a total of 4 and they have an additional one which makes 5. He could make a strong argument for an additional parking space at the sacrifice of some open area of some grass. He thought he could also make an argument for five spots in view that there had been City studies that have been done that two parking spots per unit was the required amount. He was comfortable with either one. They have excellent additional screening between this property and the property to the north in the form of existing trees. They also have fencing along the north side, east side and south side that would probably be a five foot cedar fence. He felt the use of this property was already predetermined because of the 22 lots in Blevins Subdivision, fifteen of them are non - owner occupied, two are owned but occupied by students that attend CSU, three are owner occupied and the other two properties, an in house business, and the other a Christian Fellowship. He thought the duplex was a more effective use of the property rather than a single family home. Emily Smith, Vice President of Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association, talked about neighborhood compatibility, parking in this project. They seek a high quality development on the Blevins Court site which is compatible with and has the least impact on the existing fragile neighborhood. Their involvement in the planning process on this project began on June 6, 1991 at the neighborhood meeting. They recommended a duplex with two bedrooms per unit and six parking spaces as being appropriate for this site. They have consistently articulated their position as to where students are the principle occupants of rentals, at least one parking space per unit and one parking space per bedroom are required. Since that time their Association has actively pursued a resolution which would adequately address neighborhood concerns. Their concerns and recommendations have remained consistent. The present application proposes a duplex with three bedrooms in each unit for a total of five parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is not adequate. As residents of a neighborhood that is severely impacted by parking, they know that parking space guidelines used by the Planning Department were not