Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK/SENECA CENTER AT ARAPAHOE FARM PUD - FINAL - 55-87P - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 18, 2000 Page 9 Chairperson Colton commented that he felt they have done a good job with the size, but he still worries about the compatibility with the neighborhood. He thought the fact that the neighbors were supportive does a lot for neighborhood compatibility. He also still felt the height was too much but would be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Project: The Overlook/Seneca Center at Arapahoe Farm, Final P.U.D., #55-87P Project Description: Request for a neighborhood convenience shopping center located at the southwest corner of new Harmony Road and Seneca Street. The parcel is 4.69 acres in size. The proposed land uses include a 3,000 s.f. convenience store, with gas pumps, canopy, and one-bay automatic carwash. There is a 1,200 square foot, one-story; multi-tenant commercial building which may include retail, office, and childcare facility. The third building is a mixed-use structure featuring 8,200 s.f. of commercial square footage on the first floor, and seven residential dwelling units on the second floor. The parcel is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that the P.U.D. is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary and complies with the approved Arapahoe Farm O.D.P. The project complies with the design guidelines for convenience centers and continues to satisfy the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. There were two conditions of Preliminary approval pertaining to pedestrian safety and hours of operation that have been satisfied. The recommended condition is: • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 18, 2000 Page 10 1. The approval of Overlook Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farm, Final P.U.D. is conditioned upon the passage, on two readings by City Council, of an Ordinance vacating the public right-of-way commonly known as Old Harmony Road between a point beginning on Seneca Street on the east and ending at a point along the west property line of the aforementioned P.U.D. Terrance Hoagland, Vignette Studios, gave the applicants presentation. Mr. Hoagland gave a background of the project. He reviewed the site plan and the surrounding uses. Mr. Hoagland discussed access to the site, circulation of the site and parking. He discussed buffering, landscaping, screening, elevations, materials and architecture. PUBLIC INPUT Mary Carpenter, lives in the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, spoke of her concerns about this development. She was concerned about the daycare and the retail stores and what on the street would advertise those businesses. Planner Sherpard replied that the advertising on the street would be regulated by the city sign code. They would be allowed one monument sign per street frontage, they would also be allowed wall signage on the individual buildings, and they cannot be illuminated cabinet signs. He added that this project is in the residential neighborhood sign district and that is more restrictive on signage than if it were in a commercial district. Ms. Carpenter went on to say that she was also concerned about this magnitude of business coming in, and the addition of the Harmony Ridge Townhomes. She was concerned about the traffic at Harmony Road and Seneca Street. She was hoping that a traffic signal would be put in at that intersection. Anna Becker, lives in Arapahoe Farm Townhomes spoke about her concerns about the traffic on Harmony and Seneca Street. She was concerned with pedestrian safety. She was concerned that the two-story building was going to block the view of the foothills from the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes. She asked that the hours of the gas station be changed from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and she also asked that there be more landscaping. Dean Gillespie, lives in Arapahoe Farm Townhomes spoke about the increased traffic because of new development and asked that a traffic signal be put in at Harmony and Seneca. Public Input Closed r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 18, 2000 Page 11 Chairperson Colton asked Eric Bracke from the Transportation Department to address the traffic and pedestrian concerns. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department stated that a traffic signal at Harmony and Seneca has been planned for at least ten years. He felt that the timing of the signal is more of an issue. Almost all arterial collector intersections in Fort Collins will eventually have a signal if they don't already. He anticipated that with this project and several others in the area, a traffic signal would be built in about one year. He stated that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time but anticipated it would with the additional development in the area. As far as the pedestrian aspect to the signal, when Harmony Road was being planned to be realigned, the city programmed into that project, the underpass so the kids would have a place to cross. There will also be a pedestrian crossing when the signal goes in at Harmony and Seneca. Member Gavaldon asked about traffic calming for speed on Harmony Road. Mr. Bracke replied that Harmony Road is an arterial and there is no traffic calming on arterials. He stated that the speed limits have been lowered and the police do monitor the speed in that area closely. Chairperson Colton asked Planner Shepard to address the question of the two-story building and blocking views. Were there any regulations on that? Planner Shepard replied that the two-story buildings are under the forty foot height limit so they do not trigger the height review. He stated that the views from a private residence are not necessarily protected. Member Craig asked why the median was not brought up into the intersection. She felt that it was a great refuge for pedestrians. Mr. Bracke replied that the median is already constructed. He stated that the legs of the median would be extended. Planner Shepard addressed the hours of operation. He stated that the issue was discussed heavily at preliminary and that is why it was a condition of approval. The discussion at preliminary was primarily due to the fact that the ultimate tenant of the convenience store was not known at that time. The neighborhood was very concerned about having a 24-hour operation. A local company with a solid reputation will be the tenant. We will continue to monitor the situation and if there are complaints, the hours of operation will be recorded on the final site plan • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 18, 2000 Page 12 Planner Shepard addressed the question of more landscaping. He stated that there were not many more opportunities to put landscaping on this site. Wherever we saw another area for a tree or more shrubs, we asked the landscape architect to put something in there, and they did. The key is to monitor the situation to make sure that if something does not make it that it gets replaced. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of The Overlook Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farms, Final P.U.D., #55-87P subject to the following condition: 1. The approval of The Overlook Convenience Center at Arapahoe Farm, Final P.U.D., is conditioned upon the passage, on two readings by City Council, of an Ordinance vacating the public right-of-way commonly known as Old Harmony Road between a point beginning on Seneca Street on the east and ending at a point along the west property line of the aforementioned P.U.D. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she hoped that this did not end up being as intrusive as the neighbors think it will be. Chairperson Colton hoped that the Transportation Department would continue to monitor the situation and get a traffic signal in there as soon as possible. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Modification of Standards for LaGrange Multi- Family Housing at Rigden Farm PDP, #56-98E Project Description: Request to modify five specific sections of the Land Use Code. Sections 3.5.3(D)(2), 3.5.2(D)(3), 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(J) and 3.6.2(L)(2)(e). Recommendation: Approval of Requests 1-5.