My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 07 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 07 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
9/21/2010 10:09:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2010 07 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />July 8, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 Choke Cherry Dr, stated his support for the proposed <br />product types in the development. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />O’Connell asked what source is used to determine the change from multi-family <br />to single-family. <br />Brew stated their source has been local and national builders they have <br />consulted with over the past 2 years. <br />Brauneis inquired about a HERS rating or energy efficiency program for the <br />home construction. <br />Steve Erickson, with Ryland Homes, stated all homes are built to “Built Green” <br />program standards. <br />Brauneis asked if a portion of the site is located in the flood plain. <br />Brew state a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) was approved and a <br />Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required at time of construction <br />completion. <br />Brauneis stated his concern with the elimination of the alley loaded home <br />product. <br />Brew stated the Stapleton development has a surplus of the alley loaded while <br />the front load is selling. <br />Brauneis asked if the 20’ garage front setback with a 15’ house setback is <br />enough difference so as to not promote a line of garages along the front property <br />line. <br />McCartney and Brauneis’ discussed the required setbacks. <br />Staff and Applicant Summary and Recommendation: <br />None heard. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments: <br />O’Connell stated her support of the project requested changes. She stated her <br />disappointment in the loss of the higher density units because of the demand for <br />that type of unit in Boulder County. She also understands the financial concerns <br />of the applicant. <br />Loo stated her support of the project changes and how those changes will serve <br />the needs of the seniors in Louisville with the proposed product types. <br />Lipton stated he is pleased the number of products being made available to <br />varied income levels. Louisville does not need more big houses. He also stated <br />the front versus alley loaded garages is not a concern for him. He supports the <br />requested changes. <br />Pritchard stated he supports the changes and feels they are an improvement to <br />the product type and thus more desirable. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.