Laserfiche WebLink
Staff Summary and Recommendation - Staff has prepared for Planning Commission two <br />resolutions. Resolution # 5 denying the PUD and Resolution 5A which would approve with <br />conditions. Staff recommendation is to approve Resolution # 5. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Discussion/Motion <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - I don't have too many comments, I think we have done pretty <br />good. I am wondering if we are -restricting ourselves to only getting lot lines changed to the <br />west and only the west. It seems to me there is open space to the east. It would appear that <br />the Dahlia Street extension will go through that open space anyway. In that case we are going <br />to be left with a little tiny island of open space. Perhaps by the time it gets to City Council <br />there might be some sort of way to find a little more property. It would to the east and <br />property that is currently zoned open space. In terms of Resolution 5A I don't see any <br />problem for condition # 2 to be "The completion of the extension of Dahlia Street will be <br />required prior to C.O.". I think we can leave in conditions 3, 4 and 5. 6 - A drainage plan <br />shall be presented which is in substantial compliance with City standards; and the applicant <br />shall meet with City Engineering Staff prior to final submittal. 7 - The location of all lighting <br />fixtures should be shown on the elevations and a photometric lighting plan shall be provided. <br />8 - An agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding placement and <br />maintenance of landscaping materials in the US 36 right-of-way shall be finalized prior to <br />building permits. On condition # 1 - Additional landscape area should be provided adjacent to <br />the buildings. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - I can't add a lot to that. I think Commissioner VanNostrand has <br />done a good job preparing us for a resolution. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I agree with all eight points. I would suggest condition 9 - Additional <br />evergreen trees be part of the landscape plan in the areas adjacent to and near Dillon road. <br />Building A has not been broken up in my opinion. Since it seems important to your project <br />not to do that, I think the way to accomplish what you want, and at the same time have <br />screening from the street, is to add additional landscaping on that end. As far as stucco goes I <br />have no problems. <br />Commissioner Renfrew - I think the applicant has done a good job that, if it looks like the <br />pictures, will be quiet a compliment to the building architecture as you come in on McCaslin. <br />I too would like to see a little more year round landscaping. Not four foot type trees, maybe <br />ten foot evergreens. If we put in condition one as suggested why have it all. Maybe we <br />should just drop all of number one because I don't think it will have any impact. Looking at <br />the coverage and the lot lines I not sure there is anything they can do. I am not so sure they <br />should. <br />Commissioner Lipton - I agree with Commissioner Renfrew with regard to condition number <br />one. I more concerned on how landscaping looks from public rights -of -way then I am <br />between buildings within the hotel. From a technical standpoint I can appreciate the concerns <br />26 <br />