Planning Commission Minutes 2005 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JULY 14, 2005 Page 5 of 9 6)The applicant shall revise the PUD to relocate the drive access on Cannon Circle 35’ west. The drive relocation shall be completed in conjunction with Cannon Circle improvements. The drive relocation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 2. 7)Staff would recommend that the building elevations in the PUD for the freestanding building incorporate the following modifications: The CMU block should reflect a dimension and texture and color  to simulate a brick masonry construction. Row coursing on the building elevations should utilize an accent brick treatment to provide greater architectural detail. The east building elevation should reflect the addition of glazing  vs. the CMU. The architectural elevations should reflect roof mounted HVAC  units. All HVAC units shall be fully screened. Commission Questions of Staff: Lipton stated that the staff report does not demonstrate that all the required SRU criteria have been met; however staff is still recommending approval. Wood stated that staff had expressed concerns in the review of those criteria but was still recommending approval, in part based on the Planning Commission’s approval of the preliminary PUD. Dalton inquired why it appeared that the additional ROW was being requested from the property owner on the west side of HWY 42. Wood replied that no final recommendation had been made but staff was presenting the most restrictive of the ROW requests to one property owner. Lipton also stated that the intersection of South Boulder Rd and HWY 42 was already established and it appeared that the majority of any additional ROW would need to come from the property owners on the west side of HWY 42. Dalton inquired as to why parking is not permitted on Cannon Cr. Wood stated that the parking restriction is for NO employee parking on Cannon Cr. The PUD and zoning code require employee parking to be provided on site. Sheets asked for a clarification of what is planned for Cannon Cr. Wood stated that the property owner has a contractual agreement to meet his obligation for the completion of the public improvement project. If Cannon Cr. were to be completed it would continue west of the current property and then curve north to intersect with South Boulder Rd. Loo stated she is confused by the recommendation for the property to have a right-in and right-out turning movement. When does the applicant need to fulfill the requirement and is it the property owner’s financial responsibility?