My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 03 10
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 03 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:10 AM
Creation date
10/14/2016 8:45:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2016 03 10
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.
/
449
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 />February 11, 2016 <br />Page 14 of 18 <br />comes to traffic flow, we need to look at the 2035 data and see if we are making the right <br />judgement calls. In regard to the signals, if it is warranted by CDOT, I will not argue with them. <br />Robinson says that South Boulder Road is a local road, so it is entirely up to the City. If we <br />adjust timing, we would work with CDOT since Highway 42 is their road. <br />Pritchard says we also need to consider costs and make sure the development will help us pay <br />for the additional lights if warranted. Regarding trail connectivity, who in this town is against <br />that? Anything we can do to make these connections is beneficial. It needs to be incorporated <br />into this plan. The issue with the school is an ongoing issue. I defer to BVSD because they are <br />aware of what we are attempting to do. They say they can accommodate the student loads. As <br />a city, we are aware of this. CC has complained to BVSD about this so it is an ongoing <br />argument. Regarding open space, if the property comes up and we hive the capacity to buy it, <br />then great. If the property owner comes forward, I don't believe we <br />but do as staff proposes and leave it. I would like to see the nu <br />comfortable since we have gone this far. I think we should go <br />something to CC that they can truly look at, and feel that C <br />to move forward. <br />Brauneis asks if Staff will have the cost analysis numbers before presentation at CC? <br />Robinson says yes. We apologize that they were not ready tonight. We are working on them <br />currently with Parks and Public Works. Staff should have them by the end of February. When <br />we were doing tentative scheduling, we assumed two meetings with PC before CC presentation. <br />We intend to have the numbers for the PC March meeting. <br />Rice says can we roll this over until March meeting toye the plan? Will that change the <br />schedule? <br />Robinson says yes. <br />Tengler asks if these traffic studies are <br />cars? If you believe the more aggressive <br />years. Within 20 years, you will certainly s <br />Robinson says no. We have talked a little <br />this compartmentalized parking is that parkin <br />automatic cars. It allows for the development o <br />or totally anticipating at this point. I can follow u <br />plan flexible so that changes or unforeseen chan <br />Pritchard says my impression is that the PC would like to continue this matter until March. <br />Other issues such as the "yellow" lines that are difficult to see can be corrected. I want a clean <br />plan going to CC. I would like to continue this matter to the March meeting. <br />Id change the zoning <br />and would feel more <br />le way and give <br />necessary information <br />incorpo . e potential for driverless <br />ould .eeing them in as few of 5 <br />desl• •ect. One of the advantages of <br />and could decrease significantly because of <br />se parcels. We are not necessarily projecting <br />h the traffic consultant. We want to keep the <br />can be accommodated. <br />Motion made by Tengler to continue the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan, Series 2016, <br />seconded by Rice. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. <br />➢ Citywide Wayfinding Signs: A request to review a draft copy of the Citywide <br />Wayfinding Sign package. <br />• Staff Member: Sean McCartney, Principal Planner <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />McCartney presented from Power Point: <br />• Citywide Wayfindinq Sign Plan. It is more subjective than technical. It was taken <br />through the same type of process that the Small Area Plan went through. The signs <br />were shown at most of the meetings such as Placemaking workshops and design <br />process. <br />• Arthouse Design is the sign subcontractor to Cunningham Group, overall facilitator for <br />the Small Area Plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.