My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 04 12
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 04 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:30:12 AM
Creation date
5/9/2012 9:08:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2012 04 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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 />March 8, 2012 <br />Page 6of 16 <br />Russell asked if the revisions(modifications) to theplan merit a revised application. <br />Russ stated staff does not believe it requires a revised application because it does <br />not change or modify the plat. The revisions create less impact. <br />Russell asked if a mixed used zoning has to have a mixed use. <br />Russ stated it needs to have at least two uses. <br />Tengler asked if the sidewalk is 8’ between Centennial and Jefferson. <br />Russ confirmed it is. <br />Tengler asked if the applicant actually added more parking spaces or did they make <br />them smaller which enabled the number to increase. <br />Mulhern stated when the level of the parking structure was lowered it enabled <br />additional spaces below grade. <br />Tengler asked what would be cost savings per unit by reducing the height. <br />Mulhern stated the cost per unit actually goes up because the change in height does <br />not affect the overall cost of the building cost. <br />Tengler asked what would be the length of time for demo and construction <br />completion. <br />st <br />Mulhern stated the 1unitswould be completed in 1 year andabout 16 months for <br />complete buildout. He added to build the 127 units the design would change to a 2-3 <br />story walkup. The current project proposal is for high luxury lofts. <br />Tengler asked is anyone knewthe current apartment vacancy rate in Boulder County. <br />Loftus stated it is lowest it has been since 2001 at 5%. <br />Lipton stated his questions have been answered. <br />Moline asked which is more expensive to build for parking structures: above grade or <br />below grade. <br />Loftus stated the subterranean cost is more expensive. <br />Moline asked for a clarification of the PUD variance requests and what are the <br />benefits of the public places and how do we measure that benefit. <br />Russ stated the current land is not being used so one of benefits is that it puts the <br />land back into use. A public benefit will bethe addition of apublic plaza. <br />Moline asked if part of what the commission is talking about is urban assets in area <br />that isn’t urban. <br />Russ stated that as properties/buildings age the owners will want to redevelop and <br />transition will go from suburban to urban. <br />Moline asked why does staff believe the traffic study works. <br />Russ stated that from SRU criteria we look at additional impacts, we compare it to <br />existing land use andconsider the level of service and how it will change or not <br />change with a project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.