Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/15/1999Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Torgerson, Craig, Bernth, Gavaldon, and Colton. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Virata, Shepard, Harridan, and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 21 and February 18, 1999 Planing and Zoning Board Hearings. • 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. #61-98 JFK Senior Apartments PDP 4. #33-9413 Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 4 (Centennial Bank) — Final PUD 5. #33-94C Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 5 (Multi -Tenant Retail) — Final PUD 6. #8-82H Fox Meadows Business Park Apartments PUD — Preliminary and Final 7. #8-821 Fox Meadows Business Park PUD, Retail Center — Preliminary and Final 8. #9-94 The Ponds at Overland Trail, Second Filing — Final Subdivision 9. #8-99 Out of City Service Request for Water and Sanitary Sewer for Poudre Overlook Subdivision Consent Item 1 was continued. Member Craig pulled items 4,5,and 8 for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Project: Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Lot 4 (Centennial Bank) Final PUD, #33-94D Project Description: Request for a 6,069 sq. ft., two-story bank building on 1.35 acres; located at the northwest comer of Harmony Road and McMurry Avenue. The site is Lot 4, Pad E of the Harmony Safeway Shopping Center. The parcel is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig needed clarification why additional parking spaces were needed. Dennis Wyatt, Wyatt and Associates Architects, representing Centennial Bank, reviewed the site plans for Lot 4 including convenient parking for customers next to the building and 4 additional parking spaces next to the drive-thru area. Those 4 spaces were primarily for employee parking. Lot 4 had more parking than required. The applicant added the 4 additional parking spaces for employees so it would open the spaces closest to the retail area. Due to the surrounding area having restrictions of easements, etc., the applicant felt ft necessary to add additional parking to be available when the rest of the center is complete. The additional spaces would be convenient for employees due to their location, and it would free up spaces in the front of the building. Member Craig's concern is those who park in the four spaces will have to park, then walk across the parking lot and drive-thru area with no sidewalk designation. Planner Shepard stated the proposal has eight spaces over the recommended guideline of 20 spaces. Mr. Wyatt added that the four spaces would be specifically for employees. The employees would arrive early or leave late, so it would not make for a constant in and out situation. There was a crosswalk specifically defined for the pedestrians to cross. The applicant felt the safety of the movement generated by the four spaces would be adequately addressed with the designated crossing area. Member Craig did not believe the pedestrians would cross at the designated area due to the skewed path they would have to take to get to the building. Mr. Wyatt stated that the bank would be willing to designate the parking stalls as employee only. Planning and Zoning Vard Minutes • July 15, 1999 Page 3 of 7 Member Craig asked the applicant why they felt it necessary to have the additional parking spaces at all. Mr. Wyatt responded that it was not for the bank specifically, but the total aggregate of the shopping center. Public Comment: None Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. She felt that with the amount of parking allowed in the shopping center, the additional spaces were not necessary. She is also not comfortable with the four additional parking spaces that were discussed. The motion was approved 5-1 with member Craig voting in the negative. U Project: Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Lot 5 (Multi -Tenant Retail) Final PUD, #33-94C Project Description: Request for a 5,000 sq. ft., one-story multi -tenant retail building on 1.47 acres; located at the northwest corner of Harmony Road and McMurry Avenue. The site is Lot 5, Pad F of the Harmony Safeway Shopping Center. The parcel is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig pulled this project to discuss the colors of the building. Dennis Wyatt, Wyatt and Associates Architects, representing the development on Pad F, stated the applicant was willing to darken the color of the masonry units. Mr. Wyatt brought samples of different colored masonry blocks. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1999 Page 4 of 7 Member Craig asked for the color to be toned down, so by the action the applicant had taken, she would be supporting the project. Member Colton asked to see the color options, so a condition could be made to the motion. Member Craig felt that Masonry color #722 would blend in better with the center. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Colton stated that the masonry of the Safeway was too bright, he believed the new color would blend in better. Planner Shepard stated the new color was still in a neutral palate of colors, which would blend with the center. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project with the condition of using block color #722. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon was uncomfortable with the Board micro -managing the colors of the projects. He would support the motion because the new color does blend with the center. Member Colton agreed with Member Gavaldon, but felt this was an instance where the Board was unaware of the impact a color could have once the Safeway building was constructed. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: The Ponds at Overland Trail, Second Filing, Final Subdivision, #9-94D Project Description: Request for 196 single-family lots on 124.25 acres; located at the northwest comer of Overland Trail and Prospect Road. The parcel is zoned RF — Foothills Residential. Planning and Zoning July 15, 1999 Page 5 of 7 Vard Minutes 0 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig was concerned about the hydrology study and what the mitigation was. Jim Allen -Morley, Sear -Brown Architects, discussed issues with the main wetland in the center of the project in the open space. The applicant was asked to look at how much of that area drains to the wetlands now, versus what drained originally. The conclusion was that 25% of the area that was draining to the area was no longer draining there. There was a different area that fed the center wetlands, which continued to drain there. There was a pipe that was proposed to assist in this process, which drained to the area as it did historically. Terry Guiselman, discussed the wetlands being supported by seeps and run-off that occur to the west, in the foothills, of the project. This provided the hydrology that supported the wetlands in the center of the project, which then drained into the smaller wetland. The project would not effect any of the drainage. The project should not have any impact of the hydrology of the wetlands. Member Craig asked if the proposed project would remove tiles which were in place to assist in the flow of the drainage for the small wetland. Mr. Guiselman said the tiles were on the lower end of the wetlands. There was a previous hydrology study done, which stated the tiles did provide some water from a drainage ditch that was delineated as a wetland. Without the existing tiles, there still should be sufficient run-off coming down from the west to support the wetland. With the watering of lawns and other irrigation, those activities would provide additional run-off to support the wetlands. A farmer, who was trying to lower the water table for the planting of crops, originally installed the existing tiles. Member Craig asked in the process of developing the lots, will there be a problem with the water table. Mr. Allen-Morely responded that the entire project has a sub -drain system planned within the roadway system. Each lot has a service, which would accept the sub -drain water. It was the surface water that fed the wetlands. This would not be affected by the project. 300 feet of drain tiles have been added along the berm to supply the small wetlands that were being fed by the existing tiles. The new tiles would assist with the underground water supply and the pipes would assist in the ground flows to support the wetlands. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1999 Page 6 of 7 Member Craig asked Kim Kreimeyer, Environmental Planner, if the surface water going into the wetlands would be damaging due to fertilizer run-off etc. that could cause algae that ruins wetlands. Ms. Kreimeyer stated the added pipe would continue the historic water flow needed to support the wetlands. The wetland had surface flow historically. Eliminating the existing tiles, could potentially reduce the wetland, so the applicant has added the new tile drain and the pipe to continue the historic flows. Natural Resources supported the proposed flows going into the wetlands. John Spilane, applicant for the Ponds at Overland Trail, stated that this project should have no effect on the wetlands, but if there was a problem, the applicant would be responsible to irrigate the area if it were to dry up. Member Craig was confused about the difference between public open space and private open space. She also asked if the land to the west of the canal would get deeded to the City or was it a part of the Homeowners Association. Mr. Spilane responded that the land to the west of the canal has already been dedicated to the city and was owned by the city as public open space lands. The land to the east of the canal would be private open space, which would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Member Craig asked Planner Shepard what the required lot setbacks were and why the plans for this project were different. Planner Shepard stated the setbacks for this project are to be the same as required for the RL zone. In the Cluster Plan, you must abide by the setbacks of the RL zone. Mr. Colton asked if there was public access through the private open space to the public open space. Planner Shepard said the trail on the south side of the project would be the public access from the street to the public open space. Public Comment: None Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Ard Minutes • July 15, 1999 Page 7 of 7 Other Business: Member Gavaldon gave a short overview of current surveys of the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Some issues would be discussed in the coming worksession. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.