My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 12 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 12 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2021 9:53:12 AM
Creation date
12/6/2021 4:50:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
12/9/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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 />November 11, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 12 <br />principles that directly applied to the application. In this case, the Comp Plan was <br />relevant because this application included residential and due to the GDP criteria. <br />Howe asked if there was a requirement for ownership and/or occupancy tied to age. <br />Ritchie replied that the language was a requirement of occupancy and did not speak to <br />ownership. <br />Howe asked if units could be occupied for a month and then rented out and asked how <br />the additional 5,000 square feet of commercial would change the traffic. <br />Ritchie replied that they had done a trip generation with the added square feet but they <br />had not created a whole new plan. She noted that the Institute of Transportation <br />Engineers (ITE) Manual had been updated since the version presented in August and <br />she described the table showing the traffic study. <br />Williams described 55+ housing characteristics, which she stated was a product that the <br />city did not have much of and that the Council had asked the Commission to address. <br />Ritchie added that design elements aimed at the 55+ market could drive attraction, as <br />well. <br />Brauneis stated that 55+ would not include those design elements and observed that it <br />would have to be occupied by at least one person who was 55 years old or older. <br />Ritchie added that the requirement would run with the land, in perpetuity. <br />Williams noted that other cities had enacted 55+ policies. <br />Ritchie agreed that such policies were on the books in other places. <br />Moline asked about the reasoning behind talking about senior housing in this location, <br />summarizing that it was not defined in the Comp Plan but that it had been part of a <br />previous subdivision agreement. He asked if that summary was correct. <br />Ritchie confirmed. <br />Diehl stated that the Commission had previously approved the removal of that <br />requirement, which Council had not liked. <br />Ritchie confirmed. <br />Brian Bair, 7552 North 83rd street in Longmont, shared the proposed changes and noted <br />that 55+ provided a diversity of product so the developers were comfortable with the <br />proposed requirement. He added that the commercial addition was added in response <br />to Council and Commission feedback. He stated that conceptual site plans were always <br />tricky at this stage, and even though they weren't required the development team liked <br />to get something out there to engage the community before the layout and unit types <br />would come in the subsequent phase. He hoped that people had seen that they were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.