HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT/1-25 ODP - 20-03 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 8
Member Carpenter moved for approval the Prospect/1-25 Overall
Development Plan, #20-03 according to the findings of facts and
conclusions in the staff report.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon stated that this area is of great concern to him and he has not
supported the last two projects for the reasons tonight. He was going to vote to
approve this project, but he wanted the record to show his concerns and that if
there is any piece mealing or any opportunity seeking here to go small and play
under the accumulation, all we are doing is making it worse than it is today. His
view is that Prospect Street has to be done right.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Mulberry Lemay Crossings Filing Two, Portion
of Lot Six, Home Depot, PDP, #36-96J
Description: Request to construct a parking lot for Ho
Tk
Depot on the southerly portion of Lot 'W of
\ Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Fili Two.
The site is located at the northe corner of
Mulberry Street and Lemay enue. The
parcel is 1.29 acres and ed C, Commercial.
Ted Shepard, City Planner, gave the`
The request also includes a modificat
no more than 50% of the parking be I
.nitation recommending approval.
parking distribution standard that
tween the front door and Lemay
Avenue. There is an analysis of that ' the staffreport as well as a graphic. Staff
is also recommending approval o e modification. He stated that the Board
also received an email from E ' Bracke of the Trans ation Department in
regards to a question that s raised.
Blair Wareheim co Itant for the Home Depot through Gallow and Romero,
5350 DTC Park'Wdy, Greenwood Village Colorado spoke to the Bo d. Mr.
Wareheim a ained to the board through a visual of the site and par ' plan
that not h ing parking on the north side of the building that would enhan the
effects the pedestrian plaza along the northern side of the building that ab s
Ma,gdolia Street. The front parking lot has been broken up into 5 smaller
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 7
criteria. They have some issues with that that they have been working through
with the Stormwater Department. The main issue is the culverts and they have
requested that two culverts blocked be opened. They made a formal request that
was denied and we are now pursuing some resolution to the culverts that affect
the floodplain. The final thing that he wanted to address is the east/west street
that comes off of the frontage road near the north end of the property. The
property owner to the north of them is Les Kaplan and they have talked with him
about a land swap so he would become the owner of the property north of that
street because it connects with his property. There is no agreement at this point,
but should that happen, he would be requesting a rezoning of just that small
triangle so the zoning would compliment or be the same on his property.
Public Input
None.
Member Gavaldon read from Page 4 of the staff report, "No site specific
development plan or Building Permit shall be approved or issued in a manner
that will result in a reduction in the level of service below the adopted level of
service standards for the affected facility." He asked how sure we are that they
cannot slip, or present something that is piece mealed and add on and add on
and then someone in the south could do the same thing without having to do any
major improvements. He thought that we are exposed to some of that
opportunity.
Director of Current Planning Gloss responded that this would follow up on
Member Meyer's comment as well. There is an exception criterion in the APF
Standards that talked about nominal impact. The question came up if a
convenience store would generate enough trips and the threshold is 50 peak
hour trips. The example used with the convenience store is that it would
generate enough traffic that it would trigger improvements to the intersection.
Member Meyer used the example of a "few houses" and a few houses would not
generate enough traffic, so conceivably, the applicant could go through a PDP
process and put in a very low density housing development here and do it
incrementally and not do the intersection improvements. That is conceivable.
Given what we have seen with the development proposal of the ODP and the
intent of the uses that are shown on the plan, it seems highly unlikely that given
the economics, that that would occur, but it is not inconceivable.
Member Craig also commented that the storm drainage issues are so large on
this property that it will come into play for anyone to develop. The cost of the
drainage improvements would prohibit anyone from putting in just a few houses.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 6
Planner Olt replied that we would require that. Typically we show a regional trail
system, but we don't typically are showing from the standpoint of a standard
bike/pedestrian connections associated with a Project Development Plan.
Member Craig referenced an ODP that came in to the south of this ODP, on the
southeast comer and they showed pedestrian connections internally as well as
how it would go out and connect to the next property. This particular ODP did
not have any of that. She then looked up what was required on an ODP under
Section 3.2.2(c)(6), she noticed that it was supposed to be required. When she
looked at the conclusions of the TIS it says, "there are no pedestrian attractions
within the distance specified by city evaluation criteria, consequently no level of
service analysis was conducted. As the area matures the sidewalk system
planned with this development will be supplemented and expanded." Nothing
was shown on this ODP, not even internally. She felt that was lacking and she
was willing to let it be "lacking" but she wanted to make sure that it is in there
very strongly at the PDP stage.
Planner Olt stated that was a point well taken.
Member Meyer also wanted to reiterate a point that she had heard that someone
could build something here without bringing the intersection up to grade. For her
comfort level she asked if anything could be built there if the intersection is not
fixed.
Planned Olt replied that was correct and that would be determined with any
subsequent TIS that is done with the Project Development Plan. A Project
Development Plan could be approved but no Final Plan for any phase of this
development could occur until those improvements are made.
Steve Pfiester, one of the owners of the property stated that there were four
items they felt needed to be worked out to proceed with any development of the
property and some of those have already been identified tonight. The first is the
Sub -Area Plan and they have been working with city staff since 1999 and that
Plan was approved last summer. The next was a 1601 study for the interchange
and he has been working with the city Transportation Department and City
Manager. There have been a series of meetings over the last 21h years and the
City Manager has written a letter indicating that the city will cooperate with their
submittal of a request for a 1601 study. That study would have to be funded by
the landowners and there are a group of landowners that are prepared to do that.
They are waiting for the ODP to be approved and then can proceed with that next
step in the 1601 study. Another issue is the floodplain. About two years ago
they were notified that the floodplain was expanded due to the new rain fall
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 5
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Sam's Club Ei�pohsion Major
Amendm #54-87AH based on the findings of facts _aad conclusions on
page 9 of the S eport, letters A through E.AIttKthe addition of
of evergreen trees in are opportunity t ,ill help improve the buffering
between this site and the re ents layer Drive. A plan must be
submitted and approved by th ing Staff.
Member Carpenter s nded the motion.
Member Sch ' t also mentioned the letter submitted by Mr. Ro son that
indicate at the doors to the tire shop will be closed as much as pos ' le to
hel itigate the noise.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Prospect/1-25 Overall Development Plan,
#20-03
Project Description: Request for approval of an Overall
Development Plan (ODP) for land uses
permitted in the C, Commercial, I, Industrial
and UE, Urban Estate Zoning Districts. The
proposed uses are 350,000 s.f. of commercial
(on 31 acres), 1,600,000 s.f. of industrial (on
84 acres) and approximately 40 single-family
residential dwelling units (on 20 acres) on a
total of 135.53 acres. The property is located
at the northeast corner of East Prospect Road
and Interstate 25.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig stated her concern was in looking over what was required for an
Overall Development Plan she noticed the TIS for pedestrians and bicycles were
not required because of the location. Part of the point of the contiguity in the
ODP's was to make sure that each piece of property connects with the other.
She has concerns that this was not required at the ODP even though to the north
there are some very definite connections that we are going to want them to make
as well as within the site. Member Craig asked that when a PDP comes in, will
we require the TIS at that time to make sure we have the pedestrian and bike
connections.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2004
Page 2
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Member Lingle seconded the motion.
Member Craig commented on Item 6, Harmony Farms Second Annexation and
Zoning. She would like to send a message to Council in regards to their
aggressive pursuant of these involuntary annexations of enclaves. She does not
feel that the negative consequences that people that are being forced into these
annexations is being looked at. She wanted to make sure that the minutes
reflect that she is concerned and would like Council to look at the impacts when
they do look at enclave annexations, instead of just putting them on the consent
agenda and not realizing that there are negative, both financially and otherwise,
consequences to these involuntary annexations.
Member Schmidt concurred with Member Craig. She thought it would be
beneficial that the people affected by the enclave be made well aware at the time
of all the fees and the financial impacts that the future annexation will have.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club
Expansion — Major Amendment
Project Description:.- Request to expand the e ' ing 99,810
square foot Sam's C membership
retail store by ad g 30,753 s.f. along
\ the west sid nd a portion of the north
side of t uilding. In addition, to
acc odate the expansion, the
rking lot�n the west side of the
building will lie re -configured including
shifting the north-s h access drive and
the curb cut on Oak Ri Drive further
west. Significant architectura 'I -changes
are proposed for the north and w�
elevations.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Lingle, Craig, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon and
Torgerson.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Barkeen, Shepard, Wamhoff, Virata,
Stringer and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1.
Minutes of the January 17, 2002, June 5, August 21,
October 16, and November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Board Hearings.
2.
Resolution PZ04-04 — Easement Vacation.
3.
Resolution PZ04-05 — Easement Dedication.
4.
Resolution PZ04-06 — Easement Dedication.
5. #54-87AH
Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major
Amendment.
6. #1-04
Harmony Farm — Second Annexation & Zoning.
Discussion Agenda:
7. #20-03
Prospect/1-25 — Overall Development Plan.
8. #36-961
Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Major
Amendment.
9. #36-96J
Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Project
Development Plan.
10.
Fall 2003 Land Use Code — Remanded Item from City
Council.
11.#43-02
Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning.
12.#42-03
Adrian — Annexation and Zoning.
Marion Jeffrey, 4620 Player Drive Pulled Item 5, Sam's Club Expansion for
discussion.