My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 02 25
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 02 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
4/14/2010 8:16:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2010 02 25
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />February 25, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 19 <br /> <br />Lipton confirmed the annexation is to the City of Louisville from unincorporated <br />Boulder County. <br />Lipton continued with a discussion of the procedures for the evening as follows: <br /> <br /> Staff Report – Update <br /> <br /> Finance Director – Fiscal Impact Report <br /> <br /> Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) – comments <br /> <br /> Applicant – New information <br /> <br /> Public comment – five (5) minutes per person <br /> <br /> Commissioner questions of staff and applicant <br /> <br /> Staff and Applicant final comments <br /> <br /> Close the public hearing <br /> <br /> Commission discussion and motion of approval <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: <br />None heard. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />McCartney stated he had no PowerPoint presentation for the evening. He <br />requested a motion to enter into public record those letters and emails received <br />and not included the meeting packet. <br />Loo moved and O’Connell seconded a motion to enter those items into public <br />record. Motion passed by voice vote. <br />McCartney discussed the following: Section 17.72.030, a GDP “shall set forth the <br />following”: <br />A. The proposed use of all lands within the subject property (also stated in <br />Section 17.72.090.B for PCZD-C districts); <br />B. The type or character of development and the number of dwelling units <br />per gross acre proposed; <br />C. The proposed location of school sites, parks, open spaces, recreation <br />facilities and other public and quasi-public facilities; <br />D. The proposed location of all streets shall be coordinated with the adopted <br />general street plan for the city. <br />McCartney stated the following with regard to each of GDP requirements: <br />A. The applicant has listed the proposed land uses in a table entitled <br />“Permitted Uses”, under the column “Permitted Uses”. The uses comply <br />with the uses established in Section 17.72.090. <br />B. The type and character of the development is listed in the table entitled <br />“Permitted Uses”, under the column “Comments/Remarks”. The density is <br />listed under the table entitled “Site Information” on the row entitled “Gross <br />Developable Area”. <br />C. The proposed locations of the parks or open spaces are not delineated on <br />the GDP. Staff continues to work with the applicant on how the 12% <br />public land dedication will be allocated on the site, and it has not been <br />determined if all of the public land will be located on this site or if there will <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.