Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK CONVENIENCE CENTER AT ARAPAHOE FARM PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87N - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • O • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 16. #31-95D Hearthfire PUD, 1st Filing- Final 17. #55-87N The Overlook Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farm PUD - Preliminary 18. #54-87AL Oak/Cottonwood Farm -Amended Overall Development Plan (Continued) 19. #46-88G Park South PUD, Third Replat -Final Member Weitkunat declared a conflict of interest on Item #5, Country Club Corners. Chairman Bell asked to put Item#16, Hearthfire PUD on the Consent Agenda. There was no objection. Member Gaveldon moved for approval of Item #5. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of Consent Agenda items 1 (June 10 only), 2,3 (including variance), 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (including variance), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Member Chapman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. THE OVERLOOK CONVENIENCE CENTER AT ARAPAHOE FARM PUD - PRELIMINARY. #65 -57A1 Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. At the time of Final P.U.D., as part of the development review process, the affected parties shall work with the City's Traffic Operations Department to explore the options for installing traffic safety devices to promote pedestrian safety. These devices, if any, shall be stated on the Final Plan. 2. At the time of Final P.U.D., as part of the development review process, hours of operation shall be stated on the Final Plan. Review criteria shall be as follows: A. Intensity of noise and lighting; B. Character of the abutting neighborhood; C. Size and scale of the proposed Convenience Center; D. Design arrangement of buildings, circulation, screening, and activities on the site; E. Proposed land uses, activities and intensity. • • S . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 3 Planner Shepard also stated that this project required a variance from the minimum required score on the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward stated that this plan included a neighborhood convenience store, other retail services,provisions for the new Harmony Road alignment, the Seneca Street extension into the Harmony Ridge development to the south and access both for the possible residential component as well as if there is some access needs for what was Old Harmony Road. Mr. Ward discussed the variance and he stated that they did not meet the point chart but were in line with the intent of that provision. Member Weitkunat asked if they would be building Seneca Street. Mr. Ward replied that Harmony Ridge needs Seneca Street for access, but are blocked out by this piece of property. Which ever property develops first will build that stretch of Seneca Street. Member Weitkunat asked if this development would imply the closure of old Harmony Road. Mr. Ward replied not at this time. The closure of old Harmony Road will be when new Harmony Road connects through to Taft Hill. Member Weitkunat asked about the use of Tract A. Mr. Ward replied that the specific use has not been determined. Member Davidson asked about a trail on the other side of Arapahoe Farms. What was it? Planner Shepard replied that was a sidewalk that is detached and is on the Arapahoe Townhome property in an easement for public access. It acts as the public sidewalk. Member Davidson asked if the City foresaw a connection to The Cathy Fromme natural area. Would there be a bicycle trail across Harmony. Planner Shepard replied there is no planned underpass. Member Davidson asked if there would drive-thrus allowed. Planner Shepard replied that they are not allowed in neighborhood convenience shopping centers. PUBLIC INPUT i • ! Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 27, 1997 Page 4 There was none. Chairperson Bell asked how this development would blend with the Harmony Ridge development. Would there be open space in between. Mr. Ward replied that there would with the open area around the attached housing buildings at Harmony Ridge. The open space should merge together. Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the variance request for meeting minimum score on the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart on the LDGS due to the nature of this particular property and the questionable nature of the multiple housing in proximity. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Chapman recommended approval of the Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farms PUD, #55-87.1:4 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. PARK SOUTH PUD, 3RD REPLAT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, #46-88G Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval with the standard final PUD condition for final utility plans and development agreement. Staff was also recommending the granting of a variance to All-Development Criteria A-1.1, Solar Orientation. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates representing the applicant gave their presentation. Ms. Ripley stated that this was a straight forward residential development. The projects density is 5.47 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Ripley spoke on the Overall Development Plan Amendment, design issues with the interface with this project and the 4 Seasons project to the west, neighborhood compatibility, the rebuilding of the fence between the two developments and the stormwater issues. Ms. Ripley reviewed some slides depicting what the interface between the two housing developments would look like. Ms. Ripley stated that they believe they meet all All- Development Criteria except for the 65% solar oriented lots. They have submitted a request for a variance from the solar orientation criteria. The proposed project has a layout of 28% solar and