Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 12, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />and Recreation Department to finalize the public land dedication prior to Final Plat <br />and PUD submittal.” <br />McCartney clarified the concern regarding Christopher Village with the following: <br />according to the Traffic Study included in the submittal and reviewed by the Public <br />Works Department, the traffic engineer does not believe there will be a detrimental <br />impactcreated with eastbound vehicles on South Boulder Road turning into <br />Christopher Village. <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 29, Series 2011 with the following <br />conditions: <br />1.The applicant shall continue to work with the Public Works Department on <br />alternative design considerations for intersection turning radii prior to the Final <br />Plat and PUD submittal. <br />2.The applicant shall continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Department <br />to finalize the public land dedicationprior to Final Plat and PUD submittal. <br />3.The applicant shall continue to work with the Davidson Highline and Goodhue <br />Ditch companies on the required ditch easements and design. Final <br />acceptance of the easements will be required prior to final submittal. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Brauneis, Russell, Tengler, Lipton, Moline and O’Connell discussed with staff their <br />concerns regarding the four (4) roadway options. McCartney clarified their specific <br />questions. McCartney summarized with a review of Option #2 as the preferred option. <br />The Commission had no additional questions regarding Tract “O” or the intersection <br />concern at Christopher Village. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Rick Brew, RMCS, Inc. briefly discussed the three identified concerns from the <br />previous meeting. <br />Commission questions ofapplicant: <br />As new members to the Commission, Moline and Tengler asked questions for <br />clarification regarding the street design, locations of buildings, the proposed <br />underpass and Tract “O”. <br />Public Comment: <br />None heard. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staffand Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion: <br />Russell stated he felt Option #1 could work as a roadway design and he understands <br />why Option #2 is appropriate. He also stated the volume traffic on South Boulder <br />Road will monitor the traffic into Christopher Village. <br />Brauneis stated he was surprised to hear about the Trailhead proposal. He stated he <br />is not concerned with a straight path. <br />Tengler stated he is comfortable with Option #2. <br /> <br />