Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 14, 2016 <br />Page 8 of 19 <br />Fordyce says my understanding from the last meeting is the sign is for the purpose of liability <br />for the State. If there is an accident there, they can stand on the law saying you shouldn't have. <br />I didn't get an impression that it would be an issue of cars coming in and out. I understand they <br />don't want more than we have had in past history. I think exit would probably be easier from the <br />stop sign than through the other exit points because you don't worry about staging yourself <br />through the traffic. I am asking if the City understands that there will be cars coming in and out. <br />We can tell them that the exit plan is fine. If the City is as comfortable with this understanding as <br />I am, it is doable. I do need to know about the narrowing because we have semi -trucks coming <br />in and out to deliver our cargo. If you narrow it, you have caused a problem. You are trying to <br />get a semi in a narrower street than it is meant for, and the traffic will be more dangerous. <br />Robinson says the width of the current road is about 35' curb to curb. The proposed access <br />would be about 25' curb to curb, a reduction of 10'. The applicant has done turning templates. <br />We can ask the applicant if they have any concerns about trucks being able to make the turn. <br />Fordyce says I am congenial to go forward with this with my understanding from the Fire <br />Department. If you are taking 10' off and you have a 52' semi coming in, you are asking for <br />congestion. I know the Fire Marshall wants to keep it for Fire Department access. I cannot <br />speak for him other than what I was told from him. It is in your hands. <br />Pritchard asks regarding follow-up we expected from the Fire Department, did they talk about <br />limitations and mobility of their rigs getting through that area? I want to confirm it. I can see <br />some logistical problems when you are taking 10' off with these rigs. I have to agree with Mr. <br />Fordyce in regard to it. <br />Robinson says there were a couple areas where they wanted more information from the turning <br />templates. I don't think this was one of them. The other issue was where the fire hydrants were <br />located. There doesn't appear to be anything specific about it in the notes from the Fire <br />Department. <br />Pritchard says we may want to make a notation on it. <br />Fordyce says after the reduced entry, the width is back to 35'. Whether it is parking lot or <br />something else, you still have the same width. I don't see the advantage in narrowing it. What <br />are they losing by the 10'? <br />Robinson says it would take out some of their storm detention area. There is drainage and <br />detention between Highway 42 and the parking lot. If you move the curb 10' to the south, you <br />lose 10' of that drainage area. <br />Fordyce asks how much of a berm do they need. I don't know the City's criteria for building <br />these things. <br />Pritchard says we now know the concern. Let's go back to Staff and then listen to the applicant <br />who can address it. <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 West Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO <br />I have been sitting in this chamber on a regular basis for over a decade, and only Mr. Pritchard, <br />Bob Tofte, and I have been doing this long enough to remember when the MUDDSG was <br />drafted. We have worked on this project as a City for over 15 years. It is wonderful to see it <br />come to fruition. In all the meetings I have sat through in this Chamber, I have never seen a <br />project come forward that was less dense, lower, smaller, had more green space, increased <br />commercial, added new retail, and provided better access than the Code required. It is unique <br />and commendable. I know there are people in the community that don't want to see another <br />home built ever anywhere. I get that. But people have property rights too. Given the situation <br />we are in, I think the Arnolds should be commended. We are adding 51 units that can't be 150 <br />people the way these are configured in a town of 20,000 people. The design is good, the <br />benefits to the City are huge, and I couldn't be in more support of this project. The business <br />neighbors are satisfied. A couple of comments about comments. Regarding condition #6, 1 <br />would say to Commissioner Brauneis that it is a provision to allow common sense to prevail. <br />That is a small town value. What we are talking about is legislating taste. We have people who <br />know the Code and the Arnold family has been working on this project literally for 15 years. I <br />