Planning Commission Minutes 2012 10 25

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2012 Page 11 of 13 No additional comments. Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion Russell expressed more interest in this submittal and how the applicant had responded to the previous community comments. He stated South Boulder is more distinctly suburban than small town Louisville. He stated the project is a good example of redevelopment. He also stated the Fiscal Analysis is not a good tool to aid in the evaluation process. Brauneis stated he was excited to see the involvement of the community and how they had moved from the negative side to a more positive response to the project. Pritchard stated this is a product needed in Louisville. He believes the project is going in the right direction. Lipton stated he has seen improvement each time the commission has seen it. The scale and massing has improved. He likes the new and different form of multi-family housing. He expressed concern with the present condition of the site. He requested the parking agreement should include the parking as well as access to the site. He provided the following as what he termed as ‘technical comments”: 1) the final should provide the detail on mechanical screening (a visual plan); 2) a complete parking plan; 3) address how bus service will work for the site; 4) look at something different than glass for the elevator tower and 5) a condition of approval regarding the shadowing effect. O’Connell stated her concerns with extending the commercial. The residential part of the project is needed in Louisville. She thanked staff for the good discussion regarding the LMC limitations. She would like to see the shadowing concerns resolved. She also stated we need to keep an open mind about renters and their importance to a community. Moline stated the plan begins to address what he experienced in a discussion at the Comp Plan Charrette. He stated he believes the applicant had addressed the concerns with the initial application. Tengler stated the plan has improved, parking has improved. He also stated that keeping the old Safeway building does not make sense. He also sees how this project will benefit the community. Planning Commission – Action Lipton moved and O’Connell seconded a motion to approve the request with the two conditions provided by staff, the addition of a third condition and minor word changes to Condition #1. The conditions would read as follows: 1. The applicant shall provide the City an updated shared parking and access agreement for the shopping center with all affected parties, prior to City Council; 2. The applicant shall create a shared parking management program that will ensure the residential portion of the parking can achieve 2 spaces per unit ratio between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am prior to final PUD submittal. 3. The applicant shall resolve shadowing concerns with the surrounding structures to the north prior to final PUD submittal.