My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1994 08 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1994 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1994 08 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:38 PM
Creation date
5/25/2004 2:30:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
8/16/1994
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1994 08 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
(1.7 acres) was approved under a PUD for 300 units of mini-storage. The PUD had expired and the <br />applicant was presenting a development plan for the entire five acres. The property is just east of <br />County Road, approximately where East Street dead-ends. The applicant was proposing to vacate <br />East Street within the subdivision. Building coverage is proposed at 40% with landscaped areas <br />along the north and east property lines. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Larry Lynch, 7923 Grassmere Drive, Boulder, Colorado, stated that there was a fair amount of land <br />dedicated to the city during the expired PUD's process which they proposed would be vacated as they <br />go through the replatting and revised PUD process. He felt that any issues with staff could be <br />resolved. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that the land for East Street was dedicated in 1983 and the proposed single entrance <br />to this facility would go over the current East Street, which is unpaved. He wondered if they would <br />be committing to make upgrades to East Street approaching their property. <br /> <br />Lynch commented that in preliminary discussions with staff suggestions were made to put in a paved, <br />two lane road on East Street for dust control. <br /> <br />Lathrop had three concerns: access, height of structures and how they would be screened, and <br />drainage. <br /> <br />Keany stated that this will be scrutinized as far as screening, landscaping, lighting, etc. <br /> <br />Howard was concerned with the screening, access, how this would coordinate the rest of the city. <br /> <br />Levihn agreed with all of these concerns stating that this will be scrutinized considerably by Council. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that screening was a very important issue. <br /> <br />Mayer felt this interferes with the city's long-term access to Hwy. 42. East Street would not be <br />sufficient. He felt the number of units would have to drastically reduced, given the access to the site. <br />He did not feel this was appropriate to the long-term use of the area. He suggested that all of the <br />zoning on Hwy. 42 be reviewed. He preferred Business zoning. <br /> <br />Keany wanted see some extensive elevations from Murphy Hill, Hwy. 42, Front Street, the proposed <br />96th Street, and from the nearby residential areas. <br /> <br />Levihn wanted staff to review the drainage. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.