My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 04 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 04 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:44 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 10:50:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
4/20/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 04 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Randy Haisfield, 6528 Columbine Court, Niwot, Colorado, provided a brief history of the <br />project. He stated that he believes the final product will raise the standard for McCaslin <br />Boulevard. He was then available to answer questions. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Wood for clarification that the Commercial Development Design Standards <br />& Guidelines require a ten-foot buffered landscape strip on all internal property lines. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />Mayer expressed concern that this requirement is not met between the shared drive and <br />the drive-through facility, specifically the area between the Outback and the proposed <br />bank. He questioned whether the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited drive-through <br />restaurants, also prohibited drive-through banks. <br /> <br />Wood replied, no. <br /> <br />Mayer questioned how the drive-through would be screened. <br /> <br />Haisfield replied that the landscaped island between the shared drive and the bank ranges <br />from six to nine feet in width. He apologized that the ten-foot requirement was not met; <br />however, he understood that it was a six-foot minimum. He explained that the tree <br />plantings in the island are intended to screen the drive-through in addition to the <br />decreased driveway on the east elevation, which now contains additional landscaping. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Wood if the Planning Commission provided any reasons for waiving the <br />standard on the internal buffer. <br /> <br />Wood replied that staff did not identify this as a specific variance. He felt the reason for <br />that was because twelve feet of lot area is in an access easement. He interpreted that the <br />internal buffer requirement may not apply to internal property boundaries with multiple- <br />lot PUDs. He apologized that he may have been in error for not directing the applicant to <br />address that. <br /> <br />Davidson requested the exact wording from the Commercial Development Design <br />Standards & Guidelines regarding internal buffers. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, agreed to read from Section 5.2 of the Commercial <br />Development Design Standards & Guidelines. He read: "shall provide a minimum of ten <br />foot wide buffer planting strip next to a perimeter or internal property line containing one <br />tree for every twenty lineal feet of property line and appropriate shrubs, ground cover, <br />and/or turf areas." He explained that this is denoted as standard. He continued to read: <br />"this may not apply to internal property boundaries within a multiple lot development to <br />the extent the lots are developed under a single Planned Unit Development Plan and <br />achieve other site design policies of these guidelines." He explained that further down in <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.