Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 13, 2021 <br />Page 9 of 10 <br />easements, and other mechanisms. She described the trail connectivity as well and the <br />changes to Campus Drive and the gross property tax benefits. Jay Hardy, 304 Habitat Cove in <br />Windsor, described the plans for parking and traffic. He noted that the development aimed to <br />reduce car trips and mitigate traffic and greenhouse gas impacts through trail connections, RTD <br />connections, carpool coordination, and other partnerships and sponsorships for multimodal <br />transportation. He stated that about $90 million was expected to be constructed in the program <br />through roadways and off -site improvements and maintenance funding that would be paid by <br />the development. He described their coordination to date with Northwest Parkway. <br />Burg shared a "day in the life" presentation on who they imagine will be using the space. <br />Rice asked for a response to the concern that they were going turn the area into a sea of <br />asphalt. <br />Baukol replied that they were working with the minimum parking amount and he noted that the <br />parking lots that they would have would be integrated with the landscape and would contain <br />greenery. <br />Rice asked about similar concerns regarding offices. <br />Baukol replied that it was not a greenfield site as it had StorageTek historically and was <br />approved for development under a previous owner. He described it as taking previously <br />developed space and reinvigorating that space, putting it back into production and opening up a <br />space that had been locked off and corporately owned for decades. <br />Rice asked about staff's conditions. <br />Baukol replied that they did not have any issues with those conditions and they were still <br />working on number 3. <br />Diehl asked what would be in the GDP amendment regarding height approvals if they didn't get <br />approval for five stories. <br />Baukol replied that they were trying to lay some foundation early on to show the stipulations that <br />would have to be met, but they understood it was not an approval. <br />Diehl stated that he was interested in seeing whether the actual build -out would match the <br />plans. He was generally in support of the project with the potential exception of the height at the <br />PUD stage and he also thought the sustainability was on the weak side. He wanted to see a <br />little more enforceable language and less "we will evaluate" and "we will consider." He stated <br />that if 2042 rolled around and everyone was still worried about greenhouse gas that would be a <br />problem; 2021 was the time to make the commitment to carbon neutral. He asked that the <br />applicant make it a bit more structured in terms of what they would really do from a sustainability <br />standpoint. <br />Moline stated that the development had so much flexibility in uses across the parcels. Around <br />20 of the 33 possible uses could be available at any of the parcels and he asked for a response <br />to concerns about how the development would make sure that the site would retain an overall <br />vision for the development. <br />Baukol replied that a coordinated design was one of the goals of the PCZD and they were in <br />alignment with that goal. That hodge-podge use layout was a horrible way for them to develop <br />