My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 11 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2006 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 11 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:17 AM
Creation date
1/24/2007 11:07:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2006 11 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />City Council <br />Joint Study Session Summary <br />November 20, 2006 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br /> <br />encroachments and increased traffic into our existing <br />neighborhoods. <br />· Can the Highway 42 Area mirror the Downtown development? <br />This development should attract people to downtown, not take <br />people away. <br />· If buildings in the development area are Mixed Use, but can be all <br />residential, how do we control the number of units? <br />· Blend, combine and encourage consistency with Downtown. <br />· We might need to scale back on allowance of residential. <br />· The nucleus of this development is the rail station. <br />· Remember to transition the uses near the existing residential <br />neighborhoods. <br />· Structured parking would be nice, but it is expensive. How did <br />Boulder pay for their structure? <br />· We need this plan to avoid individual ownership I auto oriented <br />businesses along Highway 42. Consolidate entryways. <br />· Encourage existing uses to remain and integrate them within the <br />proposed development. <br />· Hard to imagine buildings taller than 35'. <br />· Avoid legislating uses. <br />. Paul Wood & Jeff Winston initiated discussion on types of uses, such as: <br />o Regional Retail <br />o Multi Family Residential <br />o Hospital uses <br />o Commercial Retail (i.e. - Whole Foods) <br />. Paul Wood summarized the discussion: <br />o This is what we will be focusing on: <br />· Need to protect existing neighborhoods as much as we can. <br />· This development has to have "walkability and connectivity" <br />· Uses can be included in the design standards in a "menu" type of <br />a layout. <br />· This development has to be compatible with the existing <br />downtown commercial core. <br />· The building height should be permitted as a use by right up to <br />35', and allowed to be 45' with incentives, such as vertical mixed <br />use or underground parking. <br />· Access to downtown is crucial. There should be more than one <br />pedestrian underpass. Maybe consider 3 connections, and one <br />can be an overpass. <br />. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Prepared by Sean McCartney, Principal Planner <br />Submitted by Belinda Dogan-Pishner <br />November 22, 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.