Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD, 2ND FILING - APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 1-88D - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMCDONALD'S AT GATEWAY AT HARMONY ROAD PUD, 2ND FILING - APPEAL 04 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE, #1-88D. Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave the staff report and a slide presentation of the site to the Board recommending denial of the request for an appeal of the staff decision to deny a request for an administrative change to add parking for the McDonald's restaurant by reducing the landscape setback along Harmony Road. Member Winfree asked if they were to be granted the 9 feet for additional parking, how close would it bring the parking lot to the existing sidewalk. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied there was a 7 foot sidewalk existing and it would be approximately 25 feet plus to the sidewalk. Member Cottier asked if lot 4 was the lot that had no currently approved plan. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied it was lot 2, which had a standard restaurant and that was subsequently replace with an auto related use, which has since expired. Lot 4 was the western most lot that parallels Mason Street. That has a retail and service use proposed there, and has only been planned from the original preliminary. There has been no activity there since. Member Fontaine asked if there had been any complaints of the overflow parking. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied she was not aware of any. The Zoning Department would handle such complaints and would ask the property owner to comply with the parking code requirements. In this instance, the Highway Business Zoning would not permit operation of that site strictly as a parking lot. It would need to come through as a Planned Unit Development. Member Winfree asked to see the slide of the sidewalk and asked if it was 25 feet to the parking lot. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the total area is a 40 foot landscaped setback that includes a 7 foot sidewalk. That would leave 33 feet in landscaped area. It 9 feet were taken out of that, it would be actually 24 feet. Chairman Walker asked if lot 2 was being used by patrons of McDonald's. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was true and it also could be employee parking. Chairman Walker asked if the shared parking for the 4 lots concept was an element of the original approval. Ms. Albertson Clark replied that was correct and it was processed as a preliminary with only preliminary detail which then meant that each of the lots could come in as a free standing final. Each one was set up so they could come in independently in terms of the process. That maybe on of the problems causing difficulties in parking. There is no parking developed adjacent to this site. Member Cottier asked if the cars that would be parallel parked in what now is the median, was there enough room for their doors to open? Was there any standards? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that technically it could be done. One of the problems was with Poudre Fire Authority and if there was a need for a fire vehicle to circulate through there. They need a width of 20 feet. It might be tight but may work there. One concern is that the maneuvering movements it takes to parallel park, anyone parallel parking there would, for a certain period of time, be blocking the escape lane and possibly the drive-thru lane. Staff felt that this was an area where there would be too much congestion with the proposal to offset that with additional landscaping. The landscaping proposed is better than what is out there right now, but from Staffs' point of view, it was not an adequate tradeoff and the more important thing was to try to find another place for the parking needed and maintain the setback along Harmony Road. Jim Pickett, with McDonald's Corporation, stated that they have polled the customers of the restaurant on their parking and asked them to rate it from 1 to 10. The best response was 2. During the lunch peak hours, 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, people will continually park in the dirt area. They have been having their employees park on the street that goes out to Kensington. For some reason Kensington now is signed for "no parking" on both sides of the street; that totally limited their parking. If they could get some of the parallel parking on the side, and what they would do would have their employees park in that area. That would mean no people would be walking across that area and the sidewalk would be free. Mr. Pickett stated concerns of other businesses moving into the area, parking would never be better than now for their business. It's going to get worse. They did not want to go out and spend alot of money buying additional parking when they felt the lot was large enough at first to get more parking spaces. This seemed to be the best and most cost effective first plan of attack for them. He thought that this plan would work and they would find the employees would park there and would open some spaces on the side of additional customer parking. Member Cottier asked if employees used to park on Kensington. Mr. Pickett replied that they did. Member Cottier commented that was pretty far away for convenient parking. Mr. Pickett replied that they mandated that because of the lack of space on their lot. By having their employees park in other places opens 15 to 20 parking spaces out of 60 total. When the original 70 spaces were discussed it was designed with lower sales than they currently do. They are currently number ten in sales out of 240 McDonald's in Colorado. That is a reference point to how busy they are. The fourteen parking spaces would be a great asset and they would like to see it. Member Cottier asked what their experiences have been with the spaces on the western side, which were vacant in the slide. Mr. Pickett replied that most of the time you would see people parked in those spaces anytime they are busy. Member Winfree asked if their employees were currently parking in the paved parking area. Mr. Pickett replied that was correct. Member Winfree asked if they were to use these 14 spaces for employees, what have they accomplished as far as their clients. 0 Mr. Pickett replied not that much, they have opened up some spaces on Kensington and in the dirt areas. What their concern was is in the future when there is more development they have 14 spaces for their employees and they wouldn't have to find a place for them to park. Keith Hensel, Adams Avery Engineers, stated McDonald's had pursued acquiring some of the property on the north side. They would like to pickup 36 feet on the south edge side to provide parking. As Ms. Albertson -Clark mentioned earlier, it was not set up to be parking only. There was quite a cost involved in acquiring the property and it was very cost prohibitive to search in that area for additional parking. In addition, if they were to acquire the additional 36 feet, there was some doubts if the remaining parcel would be adequate for future development. It takes quite a chunk out of that piece of property. Mr. Hensel stated that they would be reducing the landscaping in that area and enhancing it in the overall area. With the enhanced landscaping, Harmony Road would not be enhanced as much as you might think. The sod area on the back might not be missed as much. Member Fontaine asked who's responsibility, in the existing plan, to pay for the shared parking. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the concept of the shared parking, from Staffs' perspective was that by doing the preliminary plan for the whole site, it gave the ability to see how the various uses would fit together and evaluate parking demands for each of those uses. There was a certain amount of parking approved for each of those uses on their own site and that what was typically what they would pay for development. However, once you put those parking areas in and if you have access or parking easements or agreements, then each party would be able to use each others parking. Member Fontaine asked if in the plan, all of the Lot 2 parking would be paid for by the restaurant. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied based on the original plan, yes. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Fontaine asked if it would be feasible for McDonald's to pay for part of the parking development to the north and have some sort of agreement made with an incoming restaurant. Ms. Albertson -Clark asked if she was asking if it would be appropriate for property owner to the north to pay. Member Fontaine clarified, would it be appropriate for McDonald's to pay to put in some of the parking. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was feasible, one of the recommendations Staff has given was to pursue additional parking off -site regardless of what action this board takes tonight on this item, parking was still going to be an issue. Ms. Albertson -Clark added that the property owner to the north and McDonald's would have to work an agreement, McDonald's cannot force the owner to provide them parking. 10 Chairman Walker commented that most fast food restaurants with drive-thrus locate in a high traffic and visibility areas and that was understandable. He went over the original approval of the drive-thru and the concerns of how this site would work with the Harmony Road streetscaping. He would take issue with the comment made that the view from Harmony Road would not be impacted. There was no guarantee that it would be employee parking. There was also the issue of when this site was approved there was a concept of joint parking and that was still a valid concept on this site. The fact that nothing is developed was a problem. He felt that the joint parking concept would work here when the site develops. If you are dealing with employee parking, the employer needs to make provisions. Member Fontaine mentioned that there was a transit route located at the corner of Harmony and Mason. She was also concerned with the safety problems on the site. Member Cottier commented that the high volume of the business attested to the importance of the intersection and the high traffic volume of that intersection and that justifies extra concern over how this area is landscaped. She was not convinced that the safety and congestion issues would be resolved by saying this is "employee" parking. She agreed that the joint parking concept would work on this site and as long as they were talking about providing these spaces for employees, her response would be to wait, it would not be an additional hardship to their clients. It was unfortunate that nothing has happened on Lots 2 and 4 but she thought that the joint parking concept would work once something happens on those sites. She was not inclined to support the requested change because of their statements that it was for employees. Chairman Walker asked if there would be a way, as the site exists now, McDonald's do some temporary improvements, a temporary parking lot. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the past responses to other applicants has been that there is no such thing as "temporary", once you have started, unless you have very stringent control, you have a difficult time stopping. The other question would be if the property owner would be interested in doing anything like that. Chairman Walker understood the concept of "temporary". He was looking for a temporary solution. He could appreciate the applicant's issues. He thought it would be solved when the rest of the site develops. Member Winfree commented that the increased traffic, congestion, and the altered landscape setbacks were not mitigated by the additional need for employee parking at this time. She thought the original intent was to better serve their customers and provide parking for them. She did not think that this change would alleviate that. Member Cottier moved to uphold the denial of the administrative change on the grounds that it would have a negative impact to the appearance of the intersection and also would increase safety and congestion problems. Member Fontaine seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 11