My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2022 06 02
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING ADVISORY BOARD (fka HORTICULTURE FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD)
>
2022 Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2022 06 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2022 5:04:54 PM
Creation date
5/31/2022 3:36:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/2/2022
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.
/
14
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
1. Plans have not been made available to the public ahead of tonight's <br />meeting; feels that there is inadequate time to come to a decision. <br />2. Feels that plans run counter to the sentiment of the City Wide vote. <br />3. Would like to see a lot more open space <br />4. Prior ConocoPhillips plan had over 200 acres of open space, <br />recommends an amount closer to the 200 acres <br />5. Proposed open space is cut in half by Campus Drive <br />vi. Cynthia Come Musslewaide: advised against approving plan <br />1. Concerned about 5 story buildings. Placement is Northern Exposure <br />onto Campus Drive <br />2. Proposed water habitats are too close to the roads and parking lots <br />3. The "No" campaign was not contacted after the election. <br />4. Concerned about parking lots in lieu of more innovative, creative <br />parking structures <br />vii. Anonymous online <br />1. What is the square footage of parking lots vs. buildings? Robb <br />answered: design standards and guidelines dictate minimum amounts <br />of open area on property, setbacks, etc. There is no proposal for parking <br />at this time <br />viii. Anonymous online: Is there an industrial use in the 2010 GDP? <br />1. Robb: same type of development as in the Colorado Tech Center: <br />generally light industrial <br />ix. Anonymous online: there should not be development North of Disc Drive <br />x. Tim Stalker online: current proposal is only 500,000 square feet less than <br />amendment which was voted down. Would like to see something that is <br />substantially fewer square feet. <br />xi. Catherine Smith online: Resident of Ward 3. <br />1. Would like to see developer reach out community and engage in City's <br />discussion. <br />2. Concerned about safety in bike lanes. Would like to see buffering of bike <br />lanes from the roads. <br />3. Resonates with commenters who expressed desire to preserve natural <br />high plains environment. Would like Redtail Ridge to be similar to <br />Davidson Mesa <br />4. Requests more information around how City is interpreting 2010 GDP to <br />accept industrial development. Requests that Board presents <br />information that was presented to the Board. (Laurie H note: Packet <br />materials are presented as part of PPLAB minutes) <br />xii. Questions around "Industrial Use" language <br />1. Research, corporate use, scientific research and manufacturing, <br />warehousing and storage facilities all fall under "light industrial use" <br />2. Site number to reference: Section 17.12.030 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.