My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 02 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2016 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 02 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:10 AM
Creation date
2/12/2016 1:09:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2016 02 11
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
326
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 />January 14, 2016 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />bus service. The City wanted to understand the traffic operations at that intersection. In that <br />evaluation, the concentration of the movements was "to and from" the high school during the <br />peak morning hour, and "to and from" the hospital in the evening. Based on the capacity for the <br />hospital and their peak loads, Planning Staff and Public Works Staff felt there was excess <br />capacity to meet the hospital loads, both Avista and Centennial Peaks. We did not require the <br />hospital to do a traffic study based on the high school traffic study performed. We admit that 88th <br />Street is stressed and it is primarily stressed at the morning peak and mid - afternoon peak <br />associated with the high school, not with the hospital. The peak hour movements for the hospital <br />don't align with the high school's peak concerns. <br />Tsay says in living there, the 88th Street is a one -lane main street. By my perception, I feel there <br />is always pretty bad traffic. It was so bad, they had to put in a traffic light at Dillon and St. <br />Andrews Lane because people who live in the subdivision have only two outlets. One outlet is <br />onto 88th Street which is a one lane way, and the other is Dillon Road where we have the traffic <br />light which really helps there. I am a little surprised that the traffic analysis was not done. <br />Russ says, just to be clear, a traffic analysis was done. The hours and the loads this use would <br />generate on the demands of the intersection are not a concern to the City. The primary <br />challenge that we agree on is there is congestion at this intersection. They are at different times <br />to which this hospital is going to be impacting that intersection. The improvements to modify this <br />intersection are beyond reasonable for this hospital to solve the bigger problem being caused by <br />Monarch and the overall development in the area. <br />Tsay asks regarding construction parking, where will that be? You say it won't be on St. <br />Andrews Lane, but where will it be? <br />Root says we worked through a construction logistics plan with GE Johnson, our general <br />contractor. They promise that no construction traffic will happen on St. Andrews Lane including <br />parking. All overflow parking, while the ne'`•arking, •eing built, will happen over at Avista. <br />All construction traffic will happen on Heal ' ark. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant. <br />Staff recommends Planning Commission mov- approve Centennial Peaks PUD Amendment: <br />Resolution 2, Series 2016. A resolution approving an amendment to the Louisville Psychiatric <br />Hospital PUD to allow for a 12,560 on to 1pexisting hospital and parking expansion, <br />with the following condition: <br />1. The applicant must make the changes ed in the memo from Public Works, dated <br />January 4, 2016, prior to Building Permit. <br />Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: <br />Rice in support. When I read this proposal, I saw an applicant trying very hard to address <br />concerns that people might have from a planning perspective. I think they did a good job in <br />doing it. What is important to me is that, even with this addition, this property is showing a <br />footprint well below what would be permitted under the guidelines. <br />O'Connell in support. <br />Hsu in support. I really appreciate the mission of Centennial Peaks. I think mental health is a <br />very important issue and I didn't know it was so bad in Colorado since we rank 50th. I think this <br />is a good effort. I don't want to be one of the people who say "not in my backyard." I agree with <br />my colleagues that it looks like you went out of your way to minimize the impacts and hide it <br />behind the fence. When I drove by after I got the notice, I couldn't really see much of the <br />hospital at all. I appreciate the thought you put into it regarding traffic. <br />Tengler in support. It looks like there was a lot of collaboration between Avista, Centennial <br />Peaks, and Monarch as well as the Planning Department. <br />Brauneis in support. I appreciate the 25 to 3 at the public meeting which had to feel a little <br />funny at the time. I appreciate that you did it because it says a lot of the outreach you didn't <br />have to do. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.