Laserfiche WebLink
3. That the final door design be subject to Staff review and approval for compliance <br /> with the Downtown Design handbook, including appropriate levels of window <br /> glazing for the portions of the door above the flood elevation; and <br />4. That the applicant submits a shared parking and shared access easement between the <br /> two properties for Staff review and approval and subsequent recordation with Boulder <br /> County prior to or concurrent with recordation of the final PUD <br /> <br />Davidson called for applicant presentation. <br /> <br />Rod Fisher, of New West Architecture, 29803 State Highway 72, Coal Creek Canyon, <br />representing the applicant, stated that he was happy to comply with the conditions set <br />forth by the Planning Commission Resolution. In consideration of the two options, he <br />voiced his concern that the applicant would have to pay for two civil engineers to design <br />two site plans, and only one plan would be used. He stated that the building plans could <br />go forward, but the civil engineering and site plan would change depending on which <br />plan is used. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the right-of-way access would only be of benefit to the business in <br />question. He asked why the taxpayers would want to pay for the right-of-way for the <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer stated that there were discussions relative to individual businesses purchasing <br />the right-of-way directly behind their property. He felt that it could potentially create a <br />problem with owners of said property not allowing other owners to cross their property. <br />He stated that they had determined that the alley could be purchased for approximately <br />$28,000. He noted the benefits to the City would be access for fire trucks and city <br />vehicles. He stated that the railroad has not been cooperative and has not returned their <br />phone calls. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the City can help negotiate with the railroad, but it was not in the <br />best interest of the taxpayers to pay for the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Howard stated that the City cannot pay for the railroad right-of-way, nor can they <br />guarantee the railroad's cooperation. He stated that he was pleased with the applicant's <br />willingness to comply with all of the Planning Commissions conditions. He asked how <br />the applicant planned to address the parking issues and Staff's concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation was the concept of <br />right-in/right-out access, and that is what they have proposed. They do not have a <br />preference for which site plan is chosen. They are leaning toward the railroad right-of- <br />way. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Tom Phare, Public Works Director about the concept of right-in/right-out. He <br />asked what would prohibit someone from doing just the opposite. He was concerned <br />with the safety issues. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />