My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_03Mar21
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
200x
>
2003
>
PCAgenda_03Mar21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2009 8:55:40 AM
Creation date
7/8/2009 9:52:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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).
View images
View plain text
MEMORANDUM <br />To: Members of the Planning Commission, Councilmember Lindstrom <br />CC: Heather Worthington, City Administrator <br />From: Deb Jones, Staff Liaison <br />Subject: Addendum to Dan Cornejo's report on the PUD and related comments <br />from the CPTED meeting. <br />Date: March 20, 2003 <br />Unfortunately, Dan will be out of town and unable to attend the Planning Commission <br />meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, March 25. However, he had some additional <br />comments which he asked us to share with you, in response to questions that have been <br />raised about the "front porches" on the senior independent living building. <br />He thinks the porches and private entrances would work because the building is <br />not an assisted living facility; it is for independent, responsible older adults in, <br />say, their SOs and 60s, who might find a private entrance a plus. In other words, <br />these tenants would not be very different from the people likely to purchase the <br />townhomes. <br />• 2. The porches and front doors would introduce elements of neighborhood <br />stewardship and responsibility to the residents, encouraging them to belong to the <br />neighborhood as much as the building. They would be on their porches; they <br />would be watchful. <br />3. Dan would like to focus on the fact that this porch idea is bold and innovative. He <br />is concerned that this well-designed project not be made bland. Security is <br />ultimately the concern of management, not the City. <br />4. He suggested the alternative of orienting the steps parallel to the porches, that is, <br />turning from a landing and going down to the side (i.e. the south), to make them <br />less visually inviting to any passer-by who might consider invading the space. <br />The issue of security relating to the porches and private entrances also came up in the <br />CPTED review. In summary, these were their comments about the porches: <br />They were not as concerned about the porches as about other potential security <br />issues, especially in the parking garages. (See CPTED report) <br />2. They were not worried about the orientation of the steps; there is enough <br />separation from the street with the steps coming down as shown. <br />• 3. However, those units should have security systems installed, as should any unit <br />with an outside door. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.