Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JUNE 11, 2009 <br />Page 12 of 14 <br />HOA”. <br />14. The applicant shall modify Sheet 1 of 17 of the final PUD to amend the ‘Footprint’ <br />total of the Proposed Building Sizes (Lot 4) Table. The total shall be amended to <br />6,858 sq/ft. <br />15. The applicant shall modify Sheet 2 of 17 to correct dimensional inconsistencies <br />between the final PUD and the final subdivision plat. These inconsistencies are <br />related to Buildings 2 and 3. <br /> <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton Absent <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Susan S. Loo Yes <br />Gail Hartman Yes <br />Monica Sheets Absent <br />Cary Tengler Yes <br />Scott Russell Yes <br />Motion passed/failed: <br /> <br />Hartman requested that her vote be noted as hestitant. <br />Discussion / finalization <br /> <br />2009-2010 Revised Planning Commission Work Plan and Goals <br /> <br />Old Town Historic Overlay District Design Guidelines and <br /> <br /> <br />Downtown Design Handbook – Staff memo. <br />Public Comment: <br />John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, Louisville, CO discussed the primary purpose of <br />Urban Renewal, what the non-tangible benefits and the economic return to the <br />City. <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 Chokecherry Dr., Louisville, CO stated he is a member of <br />the LRC but he is speaking as a resident of Louisville. He focused is discussion <br />of Goal #3 regarding the Mixed Use Development Design Standards and <br />st <br />Guidelines. He stated the 1 floor commercial requirement needs to be removed, <br />review the residential density, keep the CC zoning along HWY 42 and the need <br />to review the Downtown Design Standards specifically regarding signage. <br /> <br />Wood reminded the Commissioners that the Planning Staff will be supporting the <br />HPC. At the direction of City Council the Planning Commission and HPC are to <br />each select two members to serve on a task force which will have the purpose of <br />keeping each of their respective boards advised of topics that effect both. <br /> <br />Based on discussion between Staff and the Commissioners the following <br />modifications were requested: <br />st <br />1) Remove the sentence “The following … order of importance.” from the 1 <br />paragraph. <br />2) Goal #3 add “if appropriate” between “and revise”. The sentence would <br />read: “The design guidelines should be reviewed and if appropriate <br /> <br />