Planning Commission Minutes 2017 12 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 9 O'Connell asked for disclosures from the Commission. Seeing none, she asked for the staff presentation. Notice was posted in the Boulder Daily Camera on October 22"d and posted and mailed on October 20th, 2017. It was originally scheduled for last month, but there were outstanding issues. The application is for an addition of less than 2,000 square feet on southeast side, modifications to mechanical equipment, landscaping, adding some new materials, and a new trash receptacle. Internal changes did not trigger review and the additional dorms in the building would not involve adding staff and therefore did not affect parking needs. The plan for new trash receptacles will decrease the noise impact on neighbors. The proposal includes an addition of metal siding to the old garage doors, which were converted to windows. The windows are expensive and difficult to maintain. Staff investigated the proposed metal, as the CCDSG does not allow painted metal. However, staff found that the material in question was prefabricated metal. These types of buildings require an SRU review based on the following criteria: 1. That the proposed use/development is consistent in all respects with the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan and of this chapter, and that it would not be contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the city or the immediate neighborhood; Staff finds the PUD and SRU compliant, as they support fire protection services. 2. That such use/development will lend economic stability, compatible with the character of any surrounding established areas; Staff finds that the proposed enhancements will contribute to the economic stability of the city and reduce noise pollution for residential neighbors. 3. That the use/development is adequate for internal efficiency of the proposal, considering the functions of residents, recreation, public access, safety and such factors including storm drainage facilities, sewage and water facilities, grades, dust control and such other factors directly related to public health and convenience; Staff finds that the proposed changes do not affect water, sewage, or water. 4. That external effects of the proposal are controlled, considering compatibility of land use; movement or congestion of traffic; services, including arrangement of signs and lighting devices as to prevent the occurrence of nuisances; landscaping and other similar features to prevent the littering or accumulation of trash, together with other factors deemed to effect public health, welfare, safety and convenience; Staff finds that the proposal meets the CDDSG requirements for lighting, landscaping, and trash containers. 5. That an adequate amount and proper location of pedestrian walks, malls and landscaped spaces to prevent pedestrian use of vehicular ways and parking spaces and to separate pedestrian walks, malls and public transportation loading places from general vehicular circulation facilities. Staff finds that the proposal will not affect sidewalks or vehicular circulation. Staff recommends that the Commission approval Resolution No. 24, Series 2017. O'Connell asked the Commission for questions for staff. Brauneis asked if this material was allowed on residential homes, as he thought the prefabricated metal was the same thing as a painted metal. Dean stated that they did not regulate materials on residential homes, but that this material lasted 20-plus years and was an accent material, so it avoided the issues raised by the ban on painted metals, which deteriorate quickly. Rice asked if CDDSG guidelines had been applied to Station Number Three.