My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 02 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2024 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 02 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2024 6:10:12 PM
Creation date
2/29/2024 11:25:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/8/2024
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.
/
141
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 />December 14, 2023 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />Zuccaro said that it would not expire as it would be part of the annexation agreement. <br />Brackett Hogstad reiterated that the intention of the annexation agreement amendment <br />was to preserve the buffer. <br />Krantz asked about the capacity of the tasting room and how this would impact the <br />amount of required parking. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that the IDDSG are not being used for this application as it would <br />not be applicable for the SRU. She said that they were instead using the citywide <br />standards from section 17.20 of the LMC and setting the parking ratios from that. <br />Krantz asked what the maximum capacity for the venue would be. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that the tasting room and the event space had to be evaluated <br />separately. She said that the tasting room was set with one space per three seats, while <br />the distillery was done by number of employees per section. <br />Brauneis asked what plans the City had for the neighboring property that had the dump <br />station on it. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that she was not sure of any plans. <br />Zuccaro said he wasn't sure either. <br />Brauneis asked whether the orchard would be part of a privately operated protected <br />agricultural space, and whether people could potentially go pick them. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that it was not an agricultural lease, and the only request Parks <br />had for the applicant was that they maintain the orchard properly. <br />Brauneis asked if the orchard agreement would be forced on any subsequent property <br />owners. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that she believed there was a clause in the agreement that <br />included what would happen to the orchard. <br />Brauneis asked to compare the sizes of the current and proposed no build areas. <br />Brackett Hogstad showed the comparison from the presentation. <br />Choi asked about the inclusion of the event stage on the site plan, and how it was <br />contemplated that this would interact with the no build zone. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that activation of the event stage was a positive for the <br />Iandmarked building, and would allow it to be showcased rather than just sitting there. <br />Choi asked about how the historic building was planned to be used. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that building was planned to be used flexibly. <br />Applicant Presentation <br />Andy Johnson, DAJ Design, resident, introduced the Ironton Distillery presentation. He <br />noted that the design and development process had been ongoing for two years. He <br />introduced co-owner Lance Peterson, nonresident, co-owner and marketing manager <br />Kallyn Romero, and co-owner and head distiller Laura Walters. <br />Peterson discussed the history of the business, and what made them unique. He noted <br />that they wanted to help beautify that part of the City. He said that they were one of only <br />four distillery brew pubs in Colorado. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.