My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 10 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2011 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 10 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:45 AM
Creation date
10/17/2011 11:08:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2011 10 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
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
Page6of110 <br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 8, 2011 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Russ concluded with a review of the proposed ordinance and the changes it <br />outlines for Chapter 17.14 of the LMC. <br />Russ requested approval of Resolution No. 20, Series 2011 without conditions. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Brauneis and Russ discussed the flexibility of those individuals to follow in the <br />development of the Revitalization Area. <br />Sheets asked the following questions: <br />Can a single-family home be built in the Revitalization Area? <br />st <br />Is the inclusion of retail on the 1 floor not good simply because of the <br />Developers Forum lead by LRC? <br />Russ stated a single-family home cannot be built in the Revitalization Area. He <br />st <br />also stated the permitted use of residential on the 1 floor will have the potential <br />to make the area more viable and appealing for development. <br />Lipton asked when FasTracks development happens will the area be more <br />viable. <br />Russ stated it will not be less viable. He also concluded an office development <br />could be more viable then a retail development. <br />Lipton discussed economic analysis vs. fiscal analysis. <br />O’Connell asked for a confirmation of her understanding of the request. <br />Pritchard stated he had no questions. <br />Loo stated her questions had been answered. <br />Brauneis inquired about the connectivity of the site to downtown and if there is a <br />bike path planned. <br />Russ stated a preliminary design does include connectivity to downtown. <br />Russell asked if there is a need in the future to review the design guidelines. <br />Russ stated it would be a good discuss to have inclusion in the Planning <br />Commission Goals for next year. <br />Public Comment: <br />None heard. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staff: <br />None heard. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion: <br />Brauneis stated the requested changes are a great step in the right direction for <br />development in the Revitalization Area. <br />Russell, Sheets, O’Connell and Pritchard stated their support of the requested <br />amendment. <br />Loo stated she supports the modification and looks forward to the diversity of <br />housing products that will be available in the Revitalization Area. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.