My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2005 07 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2005 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2005 07 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:16 AM
Creation date
9/10/2014 3:16:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2005 07 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />JULY 14, 2005 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />Wood stated that the recommendation is based on the HWY 42 study and the existing <br />CDOT Access Control plan for HWY 42. The property owner is responsible to provide <br />access to the property that is safe and acceptable to all regulatory parties. <br />McAvinew asked who paid for the access point out of Nighthawk Circle. <br />Wood stated that the City might have been responsible for those access modifications. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Gordon Fordyce, 1655 Cannon Circle, Louisville provided the following points of <br />information: <br />The right-in and right-out request should be a shared cost with other property <br /> <br /> <br />owners. <br />Moving the current drive 35’ west causes access circulation problems internally. <br /> <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Dalton asked the architect to come forward for his questions. <br />Dalton asked if the additional ROW is reflected on the map. <br />Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson, Louisville, replied that he had not received the information <br />prior to the meeting. Stewart expressed concern about requesting his client to accept the <br />proposed changes without them having an opportunity to discuss before making a <br />decision. <br />Loo, Lipton, Dalton, and McAvinew addressed their concerns with Fordyce and Stewart <br />regarding the numerous non-compliance issues with the 1990 PUD requirements: off <br />street parking by his employees, inoperable vehicles not parked in a building and no <br />screening. Given the applicants current management of the property, the Commission <br />questioned what confidence they should have in his ability to manage an expanded <br />operation. <br />Fordyce stated that the new building is designed to provide the screening <br />Stewart stated that the new PUD clearly provides opportunities for compliance. <br />Pritchard ask Fordyce if it was possible for he and the City to move forward with this <br />project. He also asked if he had a timeline for construction. <br />Fordyce stated that the financial aspects of the project are being worked on. <br />Pritchard asked Stewart to work with his client to address the concerns brought forth <br />during the meeting and to develop a plan for how the client will move forward. <br />Loo asked Fordyce why it had taken a year to bring forward the final PUD development <br />plan. <br />Fordyce reported that he had been waiting on a drainage report. <br />Members of the Public: <br />None heard. <br />Staff and Applicant Summary and Recommendation: <br />Wood had no additional comments. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.