My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:46 AM
Creation date
5/7/2012 11:34:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2012 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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 />December 8, 2011 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />Public Comment: <br />No additional comments heard. <br />Additional questions of staff and applicant: <br />Sheets asked who was paying for the Gateway sign. <br />Kathy Kron, Parks and Recreation Center staff, stated there were no approved City <br />funds for the sign. <br />Sheets stated the City should pay for the sign. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staff: <br />None heard. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion: <br />Russell stated his support of the project and he would be interested in further <br />discussion regarding the Gateway sign. <br />Sheets stated the area is a nice development but not an area for empty nesters or <br />multi-family units. <br />Lipton stated he did not agree with Sheets. He stated the modifications to the original <br />plan were approved by the Planning Commission and the plans presented this <br />evening as consistent with those previously approved modifications. He also stated <br />the developer had not agreed for theproject to be affordable housing. <br />Brauneis agreed the changes were consistent with the previous approvals. He also <br />stated the developer should gift the sign to the City. <br />O’Connell stated she liked the discussion regarding Hecla Lake. The lake will be a <br />nice amenity to the area. She also appreciated the fiscal analysis discussion. She <br />also believes the sign should be added a condition of approval. <br />Sheets urged the commission to ensure that these types of future developments <br />should provide more diversity in the type of housing. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Russell moved and Brauneis seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 28, <br />Series 2011 as presented by staff. <br />The commissioners discussed the motion and the possibility of add a condition <br />requiring the applicant to pay for the Gateway Sign. <br />Russell asked if other developers had been required to pay for a Gateway sign. <br />Russ stated the sign at Takoda/Steel Ranch was part of the metro district for Steel <br />Ranch. <br />Lipton stated an entry sign had not required of a developer since the Centennial <br />Valley project. The practice has been for the developer to dedicate the land for such <br />a use. <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff LiptonYes <br />Chris Pritchardexcused <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.