My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:46 AM
Creation date
5/7/2012 11:34:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2012 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 8, 2011 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br />Brauneis asked if anything had changed since the last meeting. <br />McCartney stated there had been no changes. <br />Sheets stated the project feels very different to her. <br />Lipton asked if the 21 residential units in Planning #1 would require a PUD before <br />development. <br />McCartney stated the entire Planning Area #1 will require a public review. <br />Lipton, Sheets and Russell discussed with staff the residential units in Planning Area <br />#1, the advantage of having those residential units and not all commercial, and what <br />the fiscal analysis illustrates regarding the addition of the residential units. <br />Staff stated the use of residential in the commercial area of the site is the current <br />model being used in the Front Range. <br />Staff stated the addition of the residential units does not change the fiscal analysis. <br />There will remain the need for utilities, streets and sidewalks. The cost recovery will <br />remain similar with very limited negative impacts. The commercial units will add a tax <br />base to the site. <br />Russ stated there will be long term maintenance of the park and street. <br />Public Comment: <br />John Leary, 1116 Lafarge Ave, discussed: the fiscal analysis. He stated he is not <br />raising his comments in opposition to the development but as a point to the City to <br />remember it will be 15 years before the city will begin to receive property taxes. He <br />alsostated the fiscal analysis should be made as part of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Diane Hess, Lafayette resident discussed Hecla Lake and asked for clarification of <br />her concerns regarding the lake. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Chad Kipfer, Markel Homes, reviewed Phase 2 as having the following elements: a <br />Commercial area, 421 multi-family units and single family units at the northeast <br />st <br />corner of the property. They plan to start construction in the 1quarter of 2012. <br />Commission questions of applicant: <br />Sheets asked questions about the pocket parks. <br />Kipfer clarified the location and use of the pocket parks within the Phase 2. <br />NOTE: Pritchard left the meeting at 8:05 PM <br />Lipton asked about the size of the homes and the price points for the smallest single <br />familyunits. <br />Kipfer stated the homes will range in size from 1,800 to 2,500 square feet with a price <br />point of approximately $400,000. <br />Brauneis inquired about landscaping around the lake. <br />Kipfer stated the design of dam will determine the final design. He noted there would <br />be a wetland area around the lake and at the dam area. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.