My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 04 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2016 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 04 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:31:31 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:37:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/14/2016
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 />April 14, 2016 <br />Page 5 of 19 <br />Rice says they are a little more than half of what the minimum is. The same is true for the <br />commercial space. <br />Robinson says yes, because of the lot coverage waivers and because they are only doing one <br />story instead of two stories, the commercial square footage is less. <br />Rice says top to bottom, the whole development is far less dense than would have been <br />allowed. In some instances, it is asking to go below what the minimum is. Those who would <br />suggest that we only approve high density projects might take a look at this one. <br />Tengler says relative to the question Rice just asked, we usually don't see requests to put more <br />parking in. We are typically dealing with the opposite side of the spectrum; we want more <br />density and fewer parking spaces. What are the over-riding considerations when you are <br />looking at reductions? What is the impact to the overall City Plan when that happens? <br />Robinson says the intent of the MUDDSG and the zoning for the Highway 42 revitalization area <br />was to create a dense mixed -use environment. This is what has been approved in the core area <br />with DELO. This further north development somewhat disconnected from DELO is much closer <br />to major arterials of South Boulder Road and Highway 42. It makes sense that this is more auto - <br />oriented than DELO and the lower density is more compatible with the Little Italy neighborhood. <br />When we put in the maximum standards, it was intended to be part of the dense mixed -use <br />neighborhood. Now that its visitors will be coming from the major arterials, allowing a little extra <br />parking makes sense. We look at the location and the surrounding development to see if it <br />makes sense here. We put these blanket rules in place. The reason we have the PUD process <br />is to address these specific concerns of "does this proposal make sense in this location?" Do <br />these waivers make sense? Since we have worked on this proposal for over three years, given <br />its location, the proposal makes sense. <br />Brauneis asks about truck only access. It appears to be a really creative solution to an issue <br />that didn't have any other options. It strikes me as odd. I'm not aware of any other situation like <br />this. Are there any concerns surrounding it? <br />Robinson says we worked this through with our Public Works department and with CDOT. <br />CDOT wanted to move the signal south to get more spacing from the existing signal at South <br />Boulder Road and to line it up with the Harney-Lastoka entrance. There are existing properties <br />that need to be served, so the truck only access is a creative solution to serve the Fordyce <br />property and get the signal in the location we want it. It is not the ideal solution but it is the best <br />one we have at this point. <br />Brauneis asks about the sixth condition. Why would we have to do something like this at this <br />point in time? Why can't we be reassured that we will get what we think we're looking for? <br />Robinson says generally, when we get a PUD for a single family development, we may get a <br />cut sheet with some concept drawings of what the houses will look like. We don't get elevations <br />for residential. We see four-sided elevations with commercial developments. We are not asking <br />for a detailed elevation for residential because it is not our normal operation. We want to put this <br />note in the PUD so we are sure that as we review the building permits, if and when other <br />adjacent properties develop in the future, and when people want to make changes to their <br />houses and duplexes, we have this note that directs us to look at these standards and make <br />sure, if applicable, we are applying these standards. The design standards are intended for <br />multifamily residential buildings such as DELO. A lot of the design standards don't make sense <br />for a duplex. <br />Brauneis says when we talk about compatibility with Little Italy, to me compatibility means <br />variability. My hunch is we are never going to get that out of this, even with an application of the <br />guidelines. I wonder if there is enough there to insure we get a product that feels the way we <br />want it to feel. <br />Robinson says given the concept drawings included in the PUD, and the standards in the <br />MUDDSG, it is a new development and they will be built at the same time. There will not be the <br />eclectic nature you get in Old Town and Little Italy. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.