Loading...
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.