Planning Commission Minutes 2015 09 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 Page 11 of 21 Pritchard says I agree with you. I am confident that the applicant will be getting with you very soon and showing you in great detail where he sees this going forward so we can avoid it. McClure says he has 25 different iterations of a site plan. I don't know exactly what I will be proposing. I understand his concern and the concern associated with the easement. I am confident that when I am able to pin down a final plan, I can address this issue. Given all the complexities associated with urban infill, this is not complicated. This can be resolved and worked out. Pritchard says that I would say the applicant, based on our findings tonight, will be given the direction to address your concerns. I feel in order for him to move forward, these will have to be addressed. I am comfortable based on the applicant and my experience dealing with him from the Commission standpoint. The dialogue has started and you have time to work it out. Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: Moline asks if Staff has any thoughts about the intersection of Highway 42 and Griffith? I have a sense that it's in the Highway 42 Gateway Plan and it eventually gets addressed, but that may be on a separate track from some of the development. Can you remind me? Russ says the Highway 42 intersection with Griffith is in the top right corner of the illustration on the board. The Highway 42 plan calls for that to be a three-quarter movement so you can come from the south and make a left onto Griffith, but you won't be able to make a left from Griffith north on Highway 42. As we heard from the resident, you can do that now. The timing of that improvement is still years out because it is not funded. Coal Creek Station to the north has preliminary approval to extend Front Street to South Boulder Road. Little Italy and DELO will be able to go north on Front Street or Main Street, but not necessarily on Griffith in the Highway 42 plan. The only improvement the City does have funded right now is the Short Street intersection. The City has joint funding from both the State and Boulder County to do an intersection modification that starts at the first phase of the corridor. Moline asks if additional residents related to this development would go into a future warrant for improvements at Griffith and Highway 42, or not necessarily? Russ says the only warrant analysis with CDOT is for signals and these trips the residents would generate a certain allocation down to South Street and would help warrant that signal. CDOT would require that signal warranted. I think the Griffith interchange is a funding issue. Russell asks the applicant, what is your anticipated build -out on this project? McClure says assuming we garner approvals here and in the next 60 days, we want to work as diligently as possible to submit a final PUD. We like to think that final approvals could be garnered in the fall or winter of 2016 with construction subsequently thereafter as quickly as possible. I suspect 2017 first quarter for vertical construction. O'Connell asks about the condition of possible adverse possession or the easement issue. Russ says the adverse possession language was in the email. The City does not adjudicate civil issues and that is not a part of this condition. Staff's condition is related to the easement. The easement is a property right that is acknowledged on the plat. The easement concerns Louisville Trade Center. I want to make clear the adverse possession issue is between landowners. The City is not involved. We review PUDs based on public benefit, access to and from the properties clearly to the street, the lot size, and criteria to which you evaluate preliminary. Civil matters are resolved in a separate issue and the City is not involved. O'Connell asks is there a requirement to be resolved prior to final approval versus continuing to work on it? Are the easement concerns something that ultimately drives on and on? What if it doesn't get resolved? What if it goes to Court? Russ says that would get resolved. We believe the access is a property right that has been identified on a City approved plat and we have to respect that as it comes forward. Clearly, a