My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 06 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 06 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 8:10:33 AM
Creation date
7/9/2020 8:07:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/11/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />June 11, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 19 <br />Zuccaro says that right now the applicant Brue Baukol is the master developer, and has <br />a contract to purchase the property from ConocoPhillips. The developer would be <br />installing the infrastructure. They would most likely be selling some of the parcels to <br />other developers, which is what is being proposed for parcel B. This applicant would not <br />be the landowner. He is unsure if the developer will remain owning parcels C, D, and E <br />but says the applicant should be providing more information on this subject during their <br />presentation. <br />Howe asks how the timing would work for all of this. <br />Zuccaro says that it depends on which parcel is being developed when. Once the PUD <br />is approved on any of the parcels, the developer has a two-year period in which they <br />would have to develop. <br />Howe asks if staff can point out on the map of where the retaining walls will be placed. <br />Zuccaro shows where the retaining walls will be located on the map. <br />Howe asks if the retaining walls will be out of site when driving on Highway 36. <br />Zuccaro says that he is unsure if they would be visible or not from Highway 36. <br />Howe says that it seems that the wastewater treatment facility will be funded from the <br />metro district. Is the city responsible for any part of that? <br />Zuccaro says no, the wastewater treatment plant is really built for full build out of the <br />city except for this land. The expansion need is coming from this development. The <br />applicant would be covering those expansion costs, but the city would be responsible <br />for its maintenance. <br />Brauneis says regarding the water treatment plant, I appreciate the need to expand it, <br />but how does the city feel about access to water rights? <br />Zuccaro asks if Kurt Kowar, Director of Public Works, could weigh in on that question. <br />Kowar says that public works feels like they are in a good position regarding water <br />rights. We have a water master plan reviewing this development and do not believe this <br />development conflicts with the water rights or our ability to supply water. <br />Brauneis mentions that there has been a lot of talk regarding transportation, and he <br />knows that public transportation is a large unknown. He asks if staff could provide some <br />possible scenarios of what this would look like. <br />Zuccaro says that one option is that with the metro district, staff has been discussing <br />with the development that part of it could have shuttle service, which is not necessarily <br />all RTD. He mentions that expansions can be difficult with RTD, but if a community <br />requests service, there are grants available for this. We could work with RTD to create a <br />new temporary route, which could be funded through a grant assistance. RTD would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.