My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 11 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 11 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:30:11 AM
Creation date
2/7/2011 11:14:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 11 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 />October 14, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 18 <br />The following table summarizes the assessment of each site based on the <br />six (6) evaluation criteria discussed above: <br />AlternativeCoverageAvailabilityExposureAccessViewsEnvironment <br />Harper Lake NegativeNegativeNegative <br />(36 homes) <br />N. Water Treatment (10homes) <br />(Existing Location) <br />S. Boulder Rd. & NegativeNegative(10 homes) Negative <br />Washington Ave. <br />N. Water Treatment Negative(8 homes) Negative <br />(HOA Option #1) <br />N. Water Treatment NegativeNegative <br />(HOA Option #2) (Constructability) (38 homes) <br />The Police NegativeNegative <br />Department (38 homes) <br />The Recreation NegativeNegative <br />Center (56 homes) <br />No Siren Negative <br />Russ continued with a review of the Special Review Use criteria by stating <br />Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 have been met while Criteria 5 is not applicable to this <br />application. Therefore, staff is in support of this request with no conditions. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Lipton asked what it would cost to move the tower. <br />Goodman stated it would cost approximately $6,000 to relocate. The cost does <br />not include any other possible site improvements. <br />Loo asked what the height difference is between a street light pole on McCaslin <br />and the siren pole. <br />Russ stated the siren pole is approximately 40 – 45 feet and he does not know <br />the height of a street pole. <br />Loo asked several questions about the service trucks. <br />Russ stated the trucks require a consider amount of area. <br />Loo asked why there is no SRU on the other locations. <br />Russ stated there had been no complaints with the other sites therefore they <br />would not be brought forward with the SRU requirements. <br />Lipton asked who owns the large commercial tower on the north side of the lake. <br />Goodman stated the tower is owned by Boulder County with a lease to the <br />private property owner. <br />Lipton asked Goodman for additional information about the tower height. <br />Goodman stated the tower could be as high at 60’ with an additional 10’ in the <br />ground. <br />Lipton asked if the pole height could be lowered. <br />Goodman stated the pole height could not be less. The height of the tower would <br />need to stay at the current height to provide the required coverage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.