Planning Commission Minutes 2007 07 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JULY 12, 2007 Page 5 of 13 . The applicant proposes to install a 17' to 22' wide landscape buffer along the entire length of the southerly property line. . Staff recommends support of the requested relief based upon exceeding both the number of required trees and the minimum length of the landscape buffer. . The building architecture is in accordance with the IDDSG. . Staff recommends approval for a final Subdivision Plat and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan for 1900 Cherry, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall meet the required public use dedication by the payment of a cash-in-lieu payment equivalent to 12% of the appraised value of the land at the time of subdivision. Such payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall provide either a fence or hedge on top of any retaining wall over 30' in height for public safety purposes. Commission Questions of Staff: Sheets asked if the applicant agrees to the two conditions. McCartney stated she should ask that question of the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Jim Vasbinder, Etkin Johnson Group, 1512 Larimer St., Suite 325, Denver, CO stated the building would not be built in phases and the applicant agrees to the two conditions as stated by staff. Commission Questions of Applicant: None. Members of the Public: Tom Bennett, property owner to the south of the proposed, stated he did not receive the notice of the hearing until last week and no one has contacted me regarding the development and the request for the relief along the two property lines. Loo stated the Commission understood during the Preliminary that the applicant had attempted to contact the property owner and phone calls had not been returned. Bennett stated that no one has contacted him. McA vinew discussed a concern of lighting and the overflow possibility to the residential property to the south. Sheets expressed her concern with the lighting and recommends a continuance for the applicant and neighboring property owner to get together. Hartman stated her agreement with Sheets. Vasbinder stated the notice had been done according to the required 500' radius but he also had no explanation for why Bennett had not received a notice during the preliminary review when he obviously received the final hearing notice. Garrett Mundeline, 555 County Road, stated he had been in contact with Bennett for information regarding the development. During his visit he noted the property had not been properly posted. McA vinew stated the property did not require posting.