My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 11 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 11 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:19:04 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
11/14/2019
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.
/
6
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 />November 14', 2019 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Howe asked if the GDP amendment redevelopment assumed that all the square <br />footage was filled. <br />Zuccaro confirmed, but noted that those were assumptions in the model. Because this <br />was a GDP and not a PUD, the City did not know what the property owners planned to <br />do. He explained that this scenario maximized the square footage. <br />Jeff Sheets with Koelbel and Company, 5291 East Yale Avenue in Denver, shared that <br />the amendment was additive to what was already in place. The proposal was basically <br />the same as in June, minus the residential component. He noted that .3 was not a <br />dense development. The current FAR was at about .25 to .3 in Centennial Valley. The <br />additional FAR would allow them more flexibility in development and to put a couple pad <br />uses, which would be tax -generating. He added that the PUD process would also <br />ensure that the Commission would review any future developments. <br />Brauneis asked if he would be amenable to reviewing and re-creating the traffic study. <br />Sheets replied that they were happy to look at the traffic study again with the new .3 <br />FAR. <br />Moline asked if these changes would make finding tenants easier. <br />Sheets replied that it was still hard. An 86,000 square -foot box was difficult to fill <br />especially with the depth of the building since it was hard to carve up into different <br />pieces. He noted that the residential component would have made development easier, <br />but it had not been received well by Louisville and so they had taken it out. <br />Moline asked if the applicant was planning to retain the development or sell the <br />property. <br />Sheets said that his company never says never, but their plan was to redevelopment <br />and re -tenant it. He noted that it was hard and expensive to knock down a building of <br />that size. <br />Hoefner asked if .3 was right. <br />Sheets replied that he did not think .5 would be happen in Louisville and he did not think <br />it was necessary. <br />Rice asked for examples in the entertainment use. <br />Sheets gave some examples, including trampoline parks, which were usually 30-35,000 <br />square feet, and indoor skiing. He stated that there were no deals done, but Kohl's was <br />gone. <br />Jim Candy, pastor at Ascent Church, 516 Country Lane in Boulder, stated that the <br />church wanted to be a positive for the City. They did not want to take up space and take <br />away money from the City to fund schools and the like. Their plan was to make use of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.