My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 04 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2025 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 04 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2025 12:51:36 PM
Creation date
4/10/2025 10:11:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/10/2025
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 13, 2025 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />layout and design for the site, and noted that it was permitted as use by right. He also <br />covered proposed waivers and parking reduction. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommended approval of Resolution 3, Series 2025 with conditions. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />Mihaly asked about the number parking spaces dedicated for the proposed pickup area. <br />Post deferred to the applicant. <br />Mihaly asked about who was responsible for the road that ran between Centennial <br />Parkway and Dillon Road. <br />Post said that it was a city owned and maintained road. <br />Moline asked about the traffic study, and whether staff though that the 10,000 daily trips <br />detailed in the report was an accurate projection. <br />Post noted that this seemed high, and said that staff had asked for clarification from the <br />applicant on this. <br />Choi asked about the size of proposed signage, and about what staff counted as signage <br />instead of exterior paint or iconography. <br />Post said that the signage area came from the polygonal area around the signs, and <br />added that this would be clarified during the signage application process. <br />Choi asked about lumen limits for the proposed digital signage. <br />Post said that the City did not have a lumen limit, but said that they instead had limits on <br />the types of lighting that could be used. <br />Choi asked whether the number of EV charging stations required for the gas station would <br />come from the gas station as a standalone use, or if they would come from the broader <br />retail use. <br />Post said that he thought that they would only apply to the accessory service station. He <br />noted that they needed to be within vicinity of the gas station use. <br />Bangs asked to clarify that the number of EV charging stations required was based off of <br />the number of gas pumps. <br />Post said that the number of chargers was based on the number of gas station pumps, <br />and that the code was not applicable to the whole store because it was not a new PUD <br />or development. <br />Bangs asked if there were any requirements for the hours of illumination for the signage. <br />Post said that he would have to check. <br />Mihaly asked if there had been any consideration of optimizing the traffic signals at the <br />Centennial Parkway and McCaslin Boulevard intersection. <br />Post said that it had not been discussed. <br />Brauneis asked about process and timing for a new traffic study and traffic signal <br />retiming. <br />Post deferred to the applicant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.