HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMAN PUD MASTER PLAN - 26-88B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES#26-888 TIMAN MASTER PLAN
Linda Ripley gave the staff description of the 53 acre project.
Tony Hughes, Vaught/Frye Architects, represented the applicant, Front Range
Partners. He explained the surrounding property, natural features, and
developer's intent to retain the wetlands. It will include a 600,000 square foot
retail/office/warehouse development with planned retail on 10 acres. The
intent was to be compatible with the area. They will provide a buffer on the
west and a unified landscape and architectural style throughout the project.
The College frontage would be higher use retail, with the office, warehouse
development to the west. The applicant had agreed to move the acccssways
and was sympathetic to topography and the trees on the site. The project was
expected to generate 17,500 trips a day.
Ms. Ripley stated the March Neighborhood meeting had resulted in no feedback.
The land uses were supported by the Land Use Policies Plan. Staff
recommended approval.
Member Shepard questioned the lack of a preliminary. Ms. Ripley indicated
there was no particular user at this time and a preliminary was not required.
Ben Veldon, Skyview Addition, asked about notification. Ms. Ripley explained
the process.
Member Kern questioned the traffic flow. Mr. Ensdorff stated the South
College Access Plan intent was to keep traffic from impacting on existing
residential neighborhoods.
Member Shepard asked if another access on College would be allowed. Mr.
Ensdorff said it was possible.
Mr. Peterson noted 370 notices were send out on December 7, 1988. Mr.
Veldon's name appeared on the list.
Member Klataske recommended approval of the project. Member Shepard
seconded.
Chairperson O'Dell was pleased the developer was concerned about wetlands
and trees. She asked Mr. Hughes how the trees would receive water when the
ditch was realigned. Mr. Hughes indicated trees would be sprinkled at the
time the overall grade changes occurred.
Member Kern was also pleased with the developer's sensitivity to the residential
area to the west.
Member Edwards added the master plan should not create too many
expectations. Intensity would be reviewed when the Board reviewed a
preliminary project on the site.
The motion to approve passed 6-0.
-3-