Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 09 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 8th, 2019 Page 2 of 4 All required notice was met. Brauneis asked for conflicts of interest. Seeing none, he invited the staff presentation. Ritchie presented the PUD and SRU for a single -story, 23,000 square foot building with four volleyball courts or two basketball courts and other amenities including locker rooms and a small cafe. Ritchie noted that there was also a small area reserved for an additional tenant or storage space. The application provides for all landscaping requirements and proposed to provide underground retention due to easement conflicts. Public works reviewed the design and had no concerns. Ritchie noted that the signage conformed to the new sign code, which should be in effect by the time this building is up. She presented the material samples to the Commission and asked that they be entered into the record. Ritchie continued that the proposed parking was adequate to operate as a training facility, but may not be adequate for events. Therefore, the PUD contained a note that if use exceeded the available parking, the applicant would be required to submit a shared parking agreement to the City. The owner is already pursuing conversations with neighboring properties to secure an agreement. Moline asked about the future use of the unfinished tenant area. Ritchie replied that with projects in the CTC, the City evaluates if it was an allowed use or an SRU including evaluating the parking availability for the proposed use. Moline asked if tournament use would trigger a new use review. Ritchie replied that a tournament would be within the approved use of the current SRU, but the note addressed the possibility that the parking would be inadequate for tournaments. Kevin Armstrong with Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, 3457 Ringsby Court Suite 200 in Denver, stated that the additional tenant was to be a congruent use such as a CrossFit training gym space, falling under a similar athletic club for the parking requirements. He anticipated having at most 20 people at a time for that use. Williams asked why recreation required special review. Ritchie replied that she had not been on staff when that use was created, but she thought it had something to do with parking, the evaluation of appropriate use, and possible outdoor facilities. Williams asked if the applicant had approached the HOA for the CTC. Ritchie replied that the applicant had worked with the HOA prior to submitting this design to make sure the HOA was onboard with the design. Brauneis asked for additional questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicant about the underground containment. 3