Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 11 , 2007 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation and Questions of the Applicant: <br />Rick Brew, RMCS, LLC 4535 Broadway, Boulder stated he would first address the outstanding <br />Issues: <br />. Conditions of approval - They accept them as they are. <br />. The difference between encumbered and un-encumbered public use dedication. <br />. The construction of trails by the developer and the maintainenance by the City. <br />. The connectivity to other trails under the railroad tracks. They support that being done. <br />. Paschal St. alignment. <br /> <br />Brew reviewed the new information listed below: <br />. Context map. <br />. Park Sizes and location of each. <br />. Possible layout of the commercial area. <br />. Density of the total area. <br />. Product types. <br />. Lot sizes and locations. <br />. Traffic access at the three intersections. <br />. Buffer planned between Louisville and Lafayette. <br />. Density of Indian Peaks. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Additional Questions of Applicant: <br />Hartman asked several questions related to the traffic. <br /> <br />Alex Arinello, LSC Transportation, stated the firm did the traffic study for both the North End <br />development in Louisville and the Indian Peaks development in Lafayette. He continued with a <br />discussion of traffic warrants, levels of service, as well as AM and PM Peak Hours of Volume. <br /> <br />Lipton asked Phare if money was available for a traffic light would CDOT be more willing to <br />move forward with a light. <br /> <br />Phare stated it might have some influence but CDOT would still consider the warrants. <br /> <br />Loo inquired if a light at Hecla Dr. will be more difficult to meet the warrants. <br /> <br />Phare stated the additional lanes that are planned for HWY 42 will have an effect of any <br />proposed traffic lights because that will change the warrants at all locations. <br /> <br />Staff and Application Summary and Recommendation: <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments: <br />Hartman stated her overall approval of the project and how it has been presented by the applicant <br />to the Commission. She expressed concerns with traffic and Planning Area #2 density. She <br />encouraged the applicant to consider moving some of the density from #2 to Planning Area #4. <br /> <br />McAvinew stated his support of the project. <br /> <br />Pritchard thanked the applicant for the strong presentation. He also stated his support of the <br />project. <br />