02/13/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 4 The applicant had proposed the City accept outlots that included ponding and right -of- way in lieu of park dedication. This would not be consistent with City Ordinance or policy. Cash fees in lieu of land dedication should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. The sign Ordinance allowed one pylon sign per street frontage, up to 200 square feet, with 25% of the sign designated for the Center name. The applicants were proposing two pylon signs with a sign face of 285 square feet plus the center name, which was approximately 35 square feet in area. On the retail buildings, wall signs were proposed over each tenant space and on the rear of the buildings. Staff did not support signs on the rear of the building unless it was incorporated into some enhanced design. The Target facility proposed a number of signs on three sides of the building. There was no signage proposed on the rear of Target. The total square footages allowed were based on the wall area; up to 20% of the wall area or 100 square feet, whichever was less. In this case, the wall areas were very large and 100 square feet was not adequate area for signage. The front of the building was approximately 9836 sq. ft. in area, which allowed up to 1967 sq. ft. of signage. Target was proposed to have a total of 1320 square feet of signage on the front elevation, which was within the 20% allowed. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicant and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek. Staff stated the retail, other than the Target Store, would probably be downsized and the plans would be resubmitted once they were changed. Chair Schaps asked about the timeline for the closing of the public hearing. Mr. Smyser responded they expected this item to be back next month. Because of the size of the project, an Environmental Assessment Work would need to be done and that had to be completed before the City could approve the project. Mr. Corson asked if the EAW application had been made, or if that be applied for in the final process. Ms. Sherman replied the EAW had not been submitted or completed yet. Steve Baker, 77th & Carroll Drive, stated his concern was that 77th Street was going to be cut in half. Mr. Powell responded the City vacated 30 feet of right -of -way and had given it back to the property owners on the north side. Mr. Powell indicated the City was very concerned about the traffic patterns and Apollo Drive would not connect to 77th Street. Mr. Baker stated he had moved to this area to have quiet and now there was going to be a store in his neighborhood with bright lights. He also asked if there would be enough economic support for a Target Store in this area. Mr. Smyser replied with respect to the lighting, it was a very important concern and they were aware of the potential effects this • • •