Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 10, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 15 <br />Howe asked for comment on the heights of the buildings east of the property in <br />Broomfield. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff had provided that information in an addendum with approved <br />building heights on the Broomfield property to the east. Each of the sub -areas had <br />significantly different height allowances in the Broomfield development, with general <br />zoning allowances between 4 and 13 stories in one area, between 40 and 70 feet in <br />another area, and an 80-foot maximum in the third area. The actual building heights <br />varied from the allowances. The tallest buildings there now were 4 stories, 60-65 feet <br />estimated, even though they allowed higher. <br />Howe asked about the best view sheds and if any of the buildings would block any of <br />the view sheds. <br />Zuccaro replied that any building would block a view from some perspective. He did not <br />know how westerly views would be affected if you were standing right next to the <br />buildings. He described the different relative heights of buildings based on the property <br />grade. He noted that along Campus Drive moving east to west there were good views of <br />the mountains that were preserved by Open Space. He added that the applicant <br />provided video renderings and drive-throughs of views for potential build -outs. <br />Geoff Baukol summarized that the key feedback points had been a desire for <br />performance accountability, a desire for more and stronger sustainability commitments, <br />and a discussion of heights above three stories. He described that the PCZD was a <br />legally binding agreement that would go with the land and that was the accountability <br />part of this, which provided legal obligations for all future PUDs. He highlighted the <br />removal of ambiguous language, including words like "draft," changing "will intend" to <br />"will," eliminated terms like "commercially reasonable." Baukol described the LEED <br />decision and noted that LEED Silver certification on suburban buildings was significant <br />and noted that there were five Silver buildings in Colorado and three of them were in <br />walkable locations and zero were in a master planned commercial and industrial <br />development. He described the City's sustainability objectives and how the application <br />aligned with the City's plans. He described the updates to heights, stating that they had <br />removed the height column and removed specific height references for anything about <br />three stories. He stated that the Council and the Commission had the power to review <br />heights in the future and there would be more details for them to base their decisions on <br />at that time. He noted that there was still common open space in the GDP because it <br />ensures alignment with existing Open Space to provide contiguous Open Space in the <br />master plan. <br />Moline noted the public comments about seeing the overall development limited from <br />the maximum allowed of 3.1 million back to 2.5 and asked for response. <br />Baukol stated that the maximum did not mean all 3.1 million would be built but it did <br />match the zoning so they could stick with what was in the Comp Plan. They were <br />sticking with the Comp Plan setting. <br />Moline moved and Howe seconded a motion to add the written public comments in <br />addenda 1-3 to the record. Voice vote. <br />