Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Ritchie says it essentially comes before you as a new final plat, so we review it under all the subdivision criteria within the code. Staff looked at those and find it complies. It is not subject to anything different. Zuccaro says you should look at this as a minor subdivision or final plat. It must meet all the same requirements such as lot size, lot width, access, and easements as if it was a new subdivision. Applicant Presentation: Jerry Moore, (architect, planner, applicant) 5589 Arapahoe, Unit 104, Boulder, CO JM Associates, Inc. PO Box 18390, Boulder, CO I have no presentation. I will speak briefly on the signage. The IDDSG would allow up to 80 SF per building, and no more than one sign per exterior entry. Those signs would be limited to no larger than 15 SF per sign. Because the buildings are configured with the potential for individual six tenant bays per building, we would like to be able to have six tenant signs all the same size at the maximum 15 SF per sign. That is where the 90 SF comes from. In addition to one sign per tenant, in the event that there is a tenant that occupies more than 50% of the building, they would be able to have a one 30 SF sign in lieu of one 15 SF sign. With that change, the increase in the overall signage on the project would never be over 80 SF currently allowed. Can a larger tenant have a little more presence without increasing the overall signage? Commission Questions of Applicant: Hsu asks about the freezer. There are a couple of materials being considered for the freezer. Can you talk about those materials and how they match with the front face of the building? Moore says the current building is precast concrete, not site cast but off-site cast. They are brought in and erected. It is a smooth concrete finish on the exterior of the building. There will be recess reveals. The proposed additions, both freezer and connection between buildings, will be either precast and match the existing material or framed structure with synthetic stucco finish that will be finished to match the end color of the precast. In this case, the vertical reveals shown on the freezer will be profiled to match the existing vertical reveals on the building. We will not have horizontal reveals on the synthetic stucco because we want it to fade into the background. It is on the rear of the building. The vations vary from the actual view from the street, and you won't sR- e b -' ding e rear from the sidewalk or 104th Street. Public Comment: Summary and request 'rStaff .plicant: Staff recommends Planning Com ` =' on move to approve 185 & 197 S. 104th Street, Resolution No.10, Series 2017 for the requested easement vacations, final plat, and final CTC Commercial PUD with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall make corrections to the drainage easement notation on the Final Plat in order to differentiate the original reception number from the reference to vacate by separate instrument. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Sheets says I have no concerns with this and support it. Hsu says I am generally in support. When I look at the elevations, the freezer sticks out but the applicant says it will match the existing material. Moline says 1 share some of Hsu's concerns on the appearance, especially from Dogwood, but I appreciate we are not in the business of regulating it. It looks like a large flat wall exposure going to Dogwood. I am in support. Brauneis says I have no issues and am in support. O'Connell says I am in support. Rice says we have a property owner who wants to invest in and improve their real property in the CTC and that's a good thing. I think the requests being made are reasonable so I support it. Pritchard says I too am in support. 9