My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 03 22
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 03 22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:08 AM
Creation date
5/9/2012 8:50:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2012 03 22
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 />February 23, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 12 <br />Russ stated the Commission can place conditions of approval on the application but <br />they should keep in mind the parking management plan does not give more parking <br />spaces. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Jim Loftus, Loftus Development, Boulder, CO introduced the Project Team Members. <br />He continued with a discussion and clarification of a misunderstanding the neighbors <br />have regarding how the development will lower property values. He stated this is top <br />notch development. The project is going to cost $32 million to construct and $31 <br />million will be for the apartments. He acknowledged the current building property <br />taxes have gone down 67% since 2008. <br />Bill Fox, traffic engineer, explained the traffic analysis. He specifically addressed the <br />concerns of the audience. <br />Tengler asked if he was suggesting the traffic for the apartments, based on former <br />Safeway use, is 40% the amount of the grocery store. <br />Lipton asked if the traffic numbers were based on the peak use of Safeway. <br />Fox stated they did not have the numbers from the peak use but they used an <br />established document to measure the analysis. <br />Moline stated he lives in the neighborhood and most of his neighbors do not <br />remember when Safeway was vibrant. He stated he wants to know how this will <br />impact the existing traffic. <br />Fox stated the study does analysis the existing traffic conditions. <br />Lipton stated the one conclusion is the apartment use could be half of what the site <br />could perform if used as a grocery store. <br />Fox described the background traffic. He stated people are still traveling to a grocery <br />store so those numbers were included in the study. He said the analysis states the <br />existing roadway capacity can support the proposed use. He spoke specifically to <br />existing traffic concerns based on conversations he had with residents after the last <br />meeting. He is committed to continue to determine how existing traffic concerns could <br />be mitigated. <br />Moline asked if they anticipate the neighborhood cutting through to the north. <br />Fox stated no. <br />Lipton asked if he could imagine any queuing of traffic that would extend to the <br />railroad tracks if a train is present. <br />Fox stated no. <br />Lipton stated the train probably creates more traffic issues. <br />Russell referenced page 4, December 2010 – June 2011 traffic counts. Is it normal <br />for them to be 70% higher than the 2012 counts? <br />Fox stated no but that is why they were included in the study. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.