My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 08 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 08 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2021 6:19:32 PM
Creation date
8/16/2021 2:58:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/12/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 8, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />described the proposal's compliance with the GDP, CDDSG, and dark -sky lighting <br />regulations. Ritchie shared that there were waivers from the CDDSG that requested <br />25% building perimeter landscaping and 20-foot-on-center street trees. <br />Diehl asked if the roadway on Lot 4 had been moved south. <br />Ritchie replied that it was generally in the same configuration as before and it had been <br />reviewed by Public Works. <br />Diehl asked about the gas substation development. <br />Ritchie replied that the gas station was not in Louisville, but the developer would need <br />to provide access and grading and there were a number of utility easements so that gas <br />line could remain in place. <br />Diehl asked about increases in traffic with this development alongside Redtail Ridge. <br />Ritchie replied that the Redtail and Parish proposals had contemplated each other's <br />developments in their traffic studies and added that there would be additional <br />opportunities for review of the traffic plan during the development process. <br />Kevin Kelley of United Properties, 2200 Creekside Point in Littleton, described the <br />project with elevations of the planned buildings. He stated that they learned lessons <br />from the first phase and had incorporated the design feedback from that phase into this <br />one. Design choices included the articulation of building panels and a mix of materials <br />other than textured concrete. Kelley described the landscaping plans, which would <br />screen the adjacent trail and the truck court. He described the sustainability plans for <br />the buildings, which matched those from the first phase. Kelley concluded with the <br />community benefits of the project, including cash -in -lieu, public land dedications, jobs, <br />and revenue. <br />Diehl asked if the building would meet IECC 2018 standards. <br />Ritchie replied that the development would be subject to the standards in place when <br />they submitted for building permits, as opposed to the standards in place during the <br />proposal. <br />Justin McCarthy of the applicant team added that they were complying with the Code, <br />which exceeded IECC. <br />Diehl asked if there was consideration given to electrification. <br />Kelley replied that they did not know what the requirements would be for the tenants as <br />they did not have tenants lined up yet. They were planning HVAC units powered by gas. <br />Diehl asked when the trail development along the railroad tracks would start. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.