Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 23

Home Browse Search

with RTD and other agencies to address the following: 1) the development of the bike and walking trail system; 2) the motorized system; 3) proposals for a bus/shuttle system and 4) the concept of the commuter rail drop site location and its relationship to STK. Pritchard asked where in the Denver Metro area has this type of similar development been proposed. Worthington noted the following: 1) the newest is the Bradburn area in Westminster; 2) Stapleton; 3) the original downtown Boulder area; 4) neighborhoods north of Cherry Creek and 5) Lowry Redevelopment. McAvinew asked if the project is dead without the residential component. Worthington stated that it creates a lose – lose scenario for all, where the mixed-use provides the win – win scenario. McAvinew asked if there is no residential what does that mean to STK. Worthington stated that we don’t believe that it works because of traffic, fiscal analysis supports the mixed-use and residential provides five times more dedicated open space then straight commercial. Lipton stated that his questions would be addressed to Worthington. He asked for details on the high-rise district along the turnpike. How many stories and what type of uses. Worthington summarized the following proposed uses: 1.Class A Office – 10-12 stories would be 175 ft. 2.Class A Hotel – 300 to 350 rooms, 30 rooms per floor, approximately 160 ft. 3.Core Area – 3 stories, approximately 50 ft. 4.setback 200 ft. from HWY 36. Staff clarified that a 75 foot setback was indicated on the GDP. Kalish stated that her questions related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. John Durham, representing Norris Dullea, 710 W. Colfax, Denver provided a brief summary of the process STK had gone through to modify the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application had been made two months prior to the other applications. Following discussions with City Staff and STK it was decided to bring the three applications forward at one time so it could address specific actions items as it relates to the GDP. Kalish asked if it is the feeling of the applicant that action is needed on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the project to move forward. Durham stated it was their opinion that was not necessary. Kalish addressed the following to staff for a clarification on the GDP. Are we to act on all seven pages of the amendment suggestions at one time. Wood replied yes. Kalish continued with additional comments, concerns and questions to the applicant. The lack of FAR and other yard / bulk requirements on the GDP are a concern. 8