Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 08 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2013 Page 5 of 10 b. The applicant shall provide turning templates and show all corners are navigable prior to the approval of the final plat and PUD. c. All street width and street design details shall be finalized prior to submittal of the final PUD. d. The applicant shall demonstrate architectural details for the residential buildings along Cannon Street at final PUD. Commission Questions of Staff: Note:The questions/comments/concerns were addressed during the staff presentation and are inserted within this section of the minutes. Moline asked for a clarification of the hatch markings on the illustrations/maps. Staff provided the explanation of each marking throughout the presentation at the appropriate places in the presentation. Lipton and Russ discussed the RTD parking and the NW Area Mobility Study. Russ noted additional conversations are needed with other property owners within the HWY 42 area. He also noted the information will probably not be available for inclusion in the final documents especially if the DELO project comes forward with the final sometime in the next year. Moline expressed urban design concerns regarding the alignment of Cannon Street. Moline stated he hoped the roadway would align with Lee Street in order to give Miners’ Field a more prominent position in the Development. Russ reviewed the relationship of Lee Street to the Hwy 42 Framework Plan and the HWY 42 Gateway Plan; He stated the disconnected feature of the Cannon Extension to Lee Street was deliberate to discourage cut-through traffic. Lipton asked if the applicant had prepared a Fiscal / Economic Analysis. McCartney stated the applicant had completed an Economic Analysis and was being reviewed by staff. . He also stated a copy of the analysis will be provided to the Planning Commission during the final approval process. Lipton and Russ discussed the LOS, density and transportation. Lipton requested a clarification of the parking ratio within each development area. Tengler requested clarification regarding the 20’ lot width. McCartney compared the proposed to the Steel Ranch South project and the request of the lot width is a similar request. Lipton, Russ and McCartney discussed the following street related topics: width, parking, snow removal and storage of snow. Staff noted the Public Works Department has been working closely with the applicant and the Planning Department on the street design. Lipton requested staff invite a representative of the Public Works Department attend a Planning Commission meeting to discuss in general terms street designs. Lipton asked staff to discuss the “Woonerf’ concept.