HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 16 91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
• May 20, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell,
Joe Carroll. Members Gorman and Walker were absent.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -
Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, and Georgiana
Taylor.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the April 22, 1991 meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow
Subdivision, 5th Filing - Final, 046-89D; Item 3 - Continued until June 24, 1991 Meeting; Item
4 - Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD, Phase 1, Preliminary - #35-87B; Item 5 - Small World
Preschool PUD - Preliminary and Final - #19-91; Item 6 - Arbor Plaza, Backyard Burgers (Pad
3), PUD Final - #137-80G; Item 7 - Sun Disk Village, Replat - Preliminary Subdivision - 015-91;
Item 8 - Larimer County Detention Facility Addition - Advisory Review - 020-91; Item 9 -
Burlington Northern Southeast First Annexation and Zoning - #50-90,A; Item 10 - Huber
Annexation and Zoning - #21-91,A; Item 11 - East Lincoln Second Annexation and Zoning -
• #5-91,A.
Member Strom pulled Items 4 and 6 for further discussion.
Member Carroll moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5-0.
Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD. Phase 1. Preliminary - 035-87B.
Member Strom stated his concern was the liability of the landscape maintenance on the common
open space, being relatively small and outside the fence for most of the homeowners. He did
not want to make a big issue at this point but would suggest a second condition to the effect
that the liability of the proposed landscape scheme for the common open space shall be
demonstrated prior to approval of the final PUD.
Member O'Dell asked if Member Strom was asking for evidence of a Homeowners Association
that would be prepared to do this.
Member Strom replied that we have language in the LDGS to the effect that they have to
demonstrate liability of the homeowner's association and or some other landscape maintenance
scheme for open space. He wanted to make that explicit so that we have some specific
i
Member Cottier added the comment that she agreed with the idea of considering this as a sign
rather than a roof coloring element. She thought there was a variety of colors and signs out
there and given its location, set back a considerable distance from College, it won't be that
visible.
Chairman Klataske stated that even though the color scheme may be all right and it was
acceptable from the color scheme standpoint, he believes the canopy itself would be a sign and
was overpowering on a building this size.
Motion was approved 3-2 with Strom and Klataske voting no.
1992 SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY
REVIEW
Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the staff report and stated that this was an advisory review
and guided by state statutes, that the Planning -and Zoning Board look at the location,
character, and the extent of the proposal. Part of the Staffs recommendation has been
forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board which contains the recommended advisements
that they were being asked to make to the school board and they would be considering those
tonight also.
Mike Spearnak, Construction Project Manager, thanked the City for being very flexible with
them, with an accelerated schedule and the Planning Department has been very helpful with
them and they appreciate that. He stated that he had with him Pat Dulaney, who is the
architect for the School District.
Pat Dulaney, stated that the project was placed directly north of Clarendon Hills and ).as a
proto-type Elementary School that the district has built 4 previous ones of and their orientation
is that the primary entry is to the southwest and the parking and the building size and exterior
playgrounds are similar to the previous schools. They do, as previously, alter the exterior so
it takes on some identity in the community. On this particular site they also have something
unique to the district in they are putting rather dense plantings of coniferous trees in several
clumps down the south property line of this to shield the residences that border the property
at that point.
Mr. Spearnak addressed the three specific items, one where the extension meets Harmony Road,
that there be provisions made for turn lanes. The second one was to put in an island in the cul-
de-sac that is off the property to mark the entrance into Clarendon Hills and to give motorists
coming down there something to tell them to slow down that they were entering a residential
area. The third recommendation was to relocate the intersection 200 feet to the west and put
greater curvature into the Hinsdale extension. He stated that the school was out to bid already.
Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, stated that as of late this afternoon it appears that the school
district and the city had completed some discussions and the school district would have the
responsibility for building improvements on Harmony Road for the turn lanes.
Member Strom stated that the packet suggested to him that the school board has already acted
on this and if anything they said tonight was just blowing in the wind.
Mr. Peterson, replied that this was a school that was on the fast track process, the Board of
Education met last week on this to authorize the go ahead. The school district, however, is
4
quite cognizant of the board's powers as set forth under Chapter 31-23-209 because the district
and the Planning and Zoning Board have gone through that effort before. He thought the
board under that provision, has the ability to request that the school board consider this fully
at a public hearing after the board acts on that, if the board wants to go that direction The
School District has been quite open with staff because of the schedules of meetings and the
time frame that they are looking at to get the school open in the fall of 1992 that they needed
to go ahead a week before the board did.
Member Carroll asked about the curvature of Hinsdale and would it cause a higher expenditure
to move it.
Mr. Spearnak replied they had looked at it and it was going to cost some money for the
engineers to go back and redo it and have it resurveyed and a number of things involved.
Member Strom asked if it was an engineering cost problem or a construction cost problem
Mr. Spearnak replied that it would add to the construction cost of the building.
Member Strom stated that he did not have a problem with the School District trying to move
rapidly, but there was a problem in the process when the district is moving so rapidly that they
get things locked in and they spend the money before the public and the Planning and Zoning
Board, representing the City, have an opportunity to review and comment and he thought that
the Hindsale curvature would be a tremendous improvement. He stated his concerns about the
amount of time they spend reviewing and thought according to state statutes have the right to
have some input before things are done, rather than afterwards.
Member O'Dell stated she has the same concern and read the State Statute-2-32-124.
Mr. Spearnak replied that they were going to be doing alot of building in the next five to ten
years with the new bond issue and they hoped to make sure that the board gets to look at things
before it happens.
Mr. Peterson stated that the board members' points are well taken and would also say for the
board members that have been on the board for the previous round of schools, there was a
complete difference in attitude in terms of the School District. There has been alot of
negotiation between the School District Board and the City Council to involve the school
district in the city's review process early on and that had certainly been the case with this
school.
Rob Ulrich, lives in Clarendon Hills Subdivision, stated that their issue was with the road
itself. Mr. Ulrich read a letter from the residents of Clarendon Hills stating they were directly
affected by the extension of Hinsdale Drive to Harmony Road. For the past several months
they had been working with the Poudre R-I School District and various department of the City
of Fort Collins to provide input for the school, extension, and neighborhood park. With regard
to the extension of Hinsdale Drive, they support the following recommendations of the
Planning Department Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board. First, the extension of Hinsdale
should be curvilinear, the intersection with Harmony Road should be shifted 100 to 200 feet
to the west and brought into the existing Hinsdale Drive in the reverse curve design. Second,
in accordance with the findings of the site access study, the connection of Hinsdale Drive
into the Clarendon Hills Subdivision be made with raised traffic circle in the location of the
present cul-de-sac to accommodate excess asphalt and to control speeds. Third, also in
3
accordance with the site access study, the new intersection of Harmony Road and Hinsdale
Drive should be constructed with the striping and geometrics as specified in order to
accommodate the necessary turn lanes.
Mr. Chuck Peterson, 4812 Hinsdale, the home immediately adjacent on the cul-de-sac at the end
of Hinsdale as it exists now. He was concerned for the safety of the children at the proposed
Southwest Elementary School and for the safety of the children of Clarendon Hills. Coming
up and over the hill that exists on Hinsdale, their children would be the first that would be
immediately endangered by the approaching traffic moving south from Harmony to Hinsdale
and the Hinsdale extension. For that reason, as a concerned parent, he rigorously recommend
that they specifically adopt the first recommendation, the curvature of the road, and the
second, with regard to the island in the middle of the cul-de-sac, elements in the
recommendation made by the Fort Collins Development Services Planning Staff. Their two
children are not the only ones endangered by not adopting these two elements of the proposal.
Therefore as a concerned citizen, he supported the adoption of this recommendation of the
Planning Department Staff in its entirety. Two observations, he would respectively submit, to
take the advice of the Transportation Department regarding transportation issues and that they
consider the recommendation of school administration with regards to school issues. Secondly,
he would observe that the School District was able to make a change today and to adopt one
of the three recommendations and agree to pay for it did not imply that the whole issue has
been decided as a done deal. You could make a change today that would respond to one of the
recommendations, you could make a change tomorrow in response to two others.
Member O'Dell asked if this subdivision and the school were being developed at the same time,
what kind of road ideally would run between the subdivision and the school.
Mr. Shepard replied that it would be a local street, 36 feet wide as a ty^ical neighborhood street
with a 54 foot right-of-way. Ideally, we perhaps emphasize that the curvilinear street pattern
in Clarendon Hills be consistently applied in that we don't transition into a grid system. There
would be a logical, sequential street pattern so once you enter off of Harmony, you don't get
confused, that the street pattern have some kind of logic to it.
Member O'Dell asked if the developer of the subdivision wanted there to be some kind of
identifying feature at the entrance to the subdivision, who would pay for that feature.
Mr. Shepard replied that unless the feature has a significant traffic control function, it is
usually paid for by the developer. If it is a median to regulate left turns, or limit a curb cut
to right turns, it is usually paid for by the developer at the time of construction and taken over
in maintenance and perpetuity by the City of Fort Collins.
Member O'Dell stated she was confused about the island in the cul-de-sac and the purpose of
it.
Member Cottier asked if a stop sign could be placed there.
Mr. Shepard replied that was one of the first suggestions that came up and there was not an
intersection. If the stop sign does not have a control function, it would be ignored and become
even more dangerous.
Member Cottier asked when they put up the flashing yellow sign that would go on when kids
are going in and out of school, how close to the end of the cul-de-sac would it be placed.
0
Mr. Shepard replied that he did not know and it had not been decided if the flashing yellow
lights would be installed. Those are typically found on collectors or arterials. They are not in
front of all schools, some schools are on local streets and don't have the volumes to warrant the
yellow signals. Where you have a school on a collector or arterial you typically find the yellow
caution lights.
Member Carroll stated that the recommendation concerning the raised traffic circle, in his
opinion, it may or may not be a bad idea and has a question in his mind if it was the
responsibility of the school district. The cul-de-sac on Hinsdale Drive in front of Mr. Peterson's
house was put in by the developer and it was his understanding it was put in as a temporary
cul-de-sac meaning it could be taken out. There was apparently some thought on the
developer's mind that Hinsdale would be continued at some point in time, therefore made it a
temporary cul-de-sac and it may be that the best thing to do would be to remove the curb and
gutter and sidewalk and asphalt and straighten the street out. He knew it was at the top of a
hill and the traffic island was a good idea. He was not persuaded by the School District's
comment that it was off site, but in this particular case, since it is off site and was really
nothing of the school district's doing, he was not persuaded that it was up to the district to put
it in. Again, as opposed to Hinsdale Drive, it could be addressed later. The traffic island could
be put in a year from now if there was a difficultly. He thought #3 had been addressed and
so if he makes the motion he would include item #3 and if he did not, he would hope it would
be included.
Member Carroll continued saying, once Hinsdale goes in, we all would realize that was the way
it was going to be forever. The turn lanes could be added at Harmony, the island could be
added at the entrance, but Hinsdale would be there longer than the school. He had not heard
a good reason why Hinsdale should not be curved. They do have a traffic engineer that is a
professional and is paid in order to know these things. H.s feeling was that unless someone
could persuade him differently, he would adopt this opinion which is in their report. The
purpose of the recommendation was to further enhance the neighborhood character of the
school site, the vacant property west of Hinsdale and Clarendon Hills. It was important to note
that this recommendation was not merely an aesthetic improvement. He did not think the
curving of the street would make it any worse. He thought there was a lot of room for
improvement for the safety of the children. This was a recommendation that needed to be
passed on to the school board. When the school board addressed this in their Monday meeting,
it was the first meeting for four new board members and the matter was handled as some what
of a consent item. He would be supporting the recommendation of our traffic planner for
Hinsdale Drive. He would not support the requirement that the district put in the traffic
island, for the reasons he stated.
Member Cottier asked if Hinsdale would be moved 200 feet to the west, would the Parks
Department agree to buy the additional ground.
Mr. Shepard replied no, because the parks acquisition or proposed acquisition did not go as far
as Harmony Road.
Member Cottier asked if it would affect the park at all.
Mr. Shepard replied no.
Member O'Dell asked if the people who live at the end of Hinsdale Drive would be affected
by the changing of the cul-de-sac, and do they already have their landscaping in.
7
Mr. Shepard replied no, there was no sod out there a week ago when he took slides. The
existing cul-de-sac is there on a temporary dedication and that the language on the subdivision
plat was very specific in saying that when Hinsdale is extended, that the temporariness of that
dedication goes away, so if we are to keep the cul-de-sac bulb, then we would have to get a
permanent dedication and it would be a voluntary dedication. On one side Mr. Peterson and
on the other side, presently Garth Development. Just a point of fact that this language is on
the subdivision plat.
Member O'Dell asked if it also said who would pay to take away the temporariness and make
it into a regular street.
Mr. Shepard replied no.
Mr. Chuck Peterson, homeowner on Hinsdale stated he was contacted by the Planning
Department Staff and asked whether or not they had committed to any landscaping relative
to the issue of the cul-de-sac. They told them that they had, the sprinkler system was entirely
installed, the sod had not been put down. They were asked whether or not they would deed the
portion of the cul-de-sac that was on their side of the property to the City if that was to be
used as a cul-de-sac or whether they wanted it built out. At that point they had already
contracted and the sprinkler system was installed. He would hope that if landscaping would
be changed someone would pay for it other than him.
Member Cottier asked if the traffic study made the distinction, showed numbers of additional
traffic that would be going south on Hinsdale from the school.
Mr. Shepard stated that the conclusion of the traffic study was that there would be no
substantial change in traffic volume in either alignment.
Matt Delilch, Traffic Engineer for Poudre R-1, stated that the additional traffic south of the
school on Hinsdale would be traffic from the neighborhood going to the school, from the
neighborhood going out to Harmony who now go out to Shields, or to the park.
Member Carroll clarified his point on the cul-de-sac stating that he did not feel that this was
a responsibility that they should ask the district to consider as a point of disapproval of the
recommendation. It is very possibly that the traffic island is the best idea and the most
workable idea. The question was whether it should be imposed on the district and in his opinion
it should not.
Member Carroll moved for disapproval of the 1992 Southwest Elementary School Site
Development on two conditions, one that the alignment of Hinsdale Drive as extended is not
curvilinear and number two that the intersection with Harmony Road with Hinsdale is not
constructed with striping and geometries as specified in order to accommodate the necessary
turn lanes. If the School Board should amend the 1992 Southwest Elementary Site Development
Plan to provide that the alignment of Hinsdale Drive be curvilinear and its intersection with
Harmony Road be shifted 100 to 200 feet to the west and brought into existing Hinsdale in a
reverse curve design and that the intersection of Harmony Road and Hinsdale Drive is
constructed with striping and geometries as specified in order to accommodate the necessary
turn lanes then he would add as part of the motion that the plan be approved and not brought
back to the board for further action.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
8
Mr. Shepard pointed out that based on the information they received this afternoon that the
second part of the condition, the striping and geometrics at the Harmony and Hinsdale
intersection will be done according to the traffic study.
Member Carroll replied it was not in the plan before them.
Mr. Eckman asked if the motion was that if the District Board chooses to follow these
conditions, it would not have to come back to them.
Member Carroll replied that was the intent.
Mr. Eckman stated also if it chooses to overrule those conditions by 2/3 vote he understood it
would not come back to them either.
Member Carroll replied he understood that.
Member Cottier asked for clarification on the motion, in that it was a motion for denial for
those two reasons.
Member Carroll stated yes.
Member O'Dell stated she felt irresponsible not addressing the issue of the cul-de-sac, but did
not believe it was the School Districts problem and wondered what was a good way to deal with
that issue.
Mr. Shepard replied that one of the scenarios that has come up was that they did not do
anything right away and work with adjacei.t property owners, work with the developer, work
with the School District and since there is a 12 month construction schedule, the plans are out
to bid, there is a window of opportunity to sit down with the parties and negotiate.
Member Cottier stated she was having trouble with the motion as stated. She agreed with
getting our recommendation of those two points across, but she would not feel comfortable
going so far as to say she was recommending denial of the project. She did not think that the
issues were big enough to say that they were going to deny it and force the School Board into
additional time. She thought the School Board has demonstrated a willingness to negotiate on
some of them. On the point of the cul-de-sac she also agreed that it was not the School
District's responsibility, it was the developers. She would not support the motion as stated.
Member Strom agreed that the cul-de-sac was not something that they should lay at the feet of
the School Board. To a certain extent, he shared the concern about effectively denying the
item on the basis of what appears to be one issue. He would support the motion because he did
not see any other alternative in terms of essentially getting the attention of the School Board.
Chairman Klataske commented that as far as the curving of Hinsdale he did not think that it
was going to cost the School Board enough as far as actual money out of pocket to detract what
it may add in both safety for the children, possibly slowing the traffic down and also the
aesthetics. As far as the traffic circle, it is off -site and it was a temporary cul-de-sac and
hoped that the developer, the neighbors and the City could continue to work on something that
would be satisfactory.
Motion for denial passed 4-1 with Cottier voting no.
9