Planning Commission Minutes 2018 07 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 12, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Ritchie described the history of the property. The PUD and plat were first approved in 2011, but in 2014 the PUD expired and was reinstated in 2015. The owner and applicant remain the same, but the previous plan assumed the owner would occupy both buildings whereas now the proposal contemplates that the owner will occupy Building B and Building A will be leased. Moline moved to add the materials board into the record. Rice seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ritchie explained that the architecture had not changed dramatically since the previous elevations. All changes comply with the Industrial Development Design Standards & Guidelines (IDDSG.) The lot previously met all standards as a single lot, but the new proposal triggered a Landscape Waiver since it divides the lot into two. Staff recommended approval of Resolution 10, Series 2018 with no conditions. Hsu asked for questions of staff. Rice asked about the Landscape Waiver and why Lot 1 could not reach the landscape requirement. Ritchie replied that Lot 1 had roughly 16% coverage and Lot 2 had around 30% and that it was possible that the detention pond and parking limited the landscape coverage. Hsu asked for the justification for the Landscape Waiver. Ritchie replied that the Landscape Waiver helped allow a shared detention pond, which would be easier to build and maintain. Hoefner asked if a future applicant could decrease the amount of landscaping on the lot that exceeded the landscaping requirement. Ritchie stated that the City would have to consider the two lots together in the future. Zuccaro added that shared detention ponds are more efficient, allow for more flexible development, and come with collective agreements for multiple property owners to contribute to the upkeep of the detention pond. Hsu invited the applicant to present. Robert Van Pelt, RVP Architecture in 3323 Arapahoe Suite 220 in Boulder, CO, stated that the way to make the lots equal would be to build two detention ponds. He addressed Commissioner Hoefner's concern that someone could decrease landscaping on one of the lots, noting that current easements would not allow that. He added that the owner was undecided with what to do with the second lot, but he wanted to be prepared for multiple options. Howe asked if it was possible to equalize the landscaping requirements without detracting from one lot. Van Pelt stated that there was not a way to even it out. If they had to break them apart, they would likely need to have two detention ponds or cut back on building coverage, leaving them with an uneven landscaping distribution. Moline asked about the parking.