Planning Commission Minutes 2014 07 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2014 Page 10 of 14 Pritchard asks whether the school will share a regional detention pond. Answer is yes. Will they share parking or be part of overall shared parking with Chilis. Scott says yes potentially but they did not provide this information with the application. Applicant Presentation: Craig Cahen, Cahen Architectural Group, representing Rick and Julia Avirett, owners. Also present are two representatives from Goddard Systems, Inc. from Pennsylvania to show support for the project. • Goddard School is an early learning center and daycare facility for up to 136 children and approximately 20 staff. • Single story building, a little over 8400 SF. Residential scale with gables and home -like architecture. • Parking issue. Applicant was not aware of cross parking agreement that is in place for this lot. Applicant submits a parking agreement for shared parking. There are 41 spaces in adjacent Lowes parking lot that the school can access, a perpetual nonexclusive easement. Motion made by Brauneis to accept agreement for shared parking with Lowes, Moline seconds, passed by voice vote. • Applicant submits review of Centennial Valley stating their approval of the project as well as the parking ratio, and a letter from Goddard School that for the eventual 2000 SF addition, the 38 parking spaces are more than sufficient. These are submitted with previous motion, treated as one motion. • Applicant unaware of the distance requirement for marijuana retail dispensary. At the time of submittal, the dispensary was probably not in existence. • The purpose of the 2000 SF addition is a gym/indoor play area, a requirement of Goddard School, and additional classroom. Gym does not bring in additional children. Commission Questions of Applicant: None. Public Comment: Michael Menaker, 1827 W Chokecherry Drive, Louisville, CO. He states the distance requirement from school is 1000 feet. The location may be within 1000 feet. Dispensaries are in place and the school is new. If this was reversed, had the school been there first and the dispensaries came second, dispensaries would not have been able to locate there because of the buffer in City Code. Is the obverse true or is it at the discretion of the school operator? This may need to be referred to the City Attorney. Craig Cahen asks if the requirement is for a school or a preschool. Pritchard answers school. From a disclosure standpoint, applicant is now aware of this. City Attorney may need to interpret this. Additional Commission Questions of Staff. - Moline asks that in light of new information on parking, does staff feel comfortable removing the condition excluding the expansion. Robinson says yes, based on their access to the 41 additional parking spaces within the development, staff is comfortable allowing the expansion. O'Connell asks if there is precedent in approving something that is hypothetical. Should it be called Phase 2? Robinson says yes, there is precedence in CTC in developments with Phase 2 that are included in the original. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: