My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 03 22
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 03 22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:08 AM
Creation date
5/9/2012 8:50:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2012 03 22
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 />February 23, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 12 <br />Lipton asked if the City has discretion in applying the SRU criteria. <br />Russ stated staff is required to review the technical aspects of the criteria while the <br />Planning Commission could approach the emotional side of the criteria. <br />Brauneis asked if the LMC allows for the applicant to request a rezoning of the <br />property. <br />Russ stated the applicant could request to rezone for the residential but the use is <br />permitted by the LMC as a special review use. <br />Russell asked if it is possible for an SRU to so change a zoning classification that is a <br />defacto rezoning. <br />Russ stated no, because zoning is what you are allowed to develop on a property. <br />He stated the Commission should keep in the mind the Village Condos to the north is <br />100% residential in the same CC zone district and they were required to be reviewed <br />by the SRU process. <br />Russell asked if an SRU could be considered a non-compatible use. <br />Russ stated the use has been found to be compatible but because of specifics of the <br />use (external) it requires additional review and details. <br />Tengler asked if the city has done other studies to determine what other uses are <br />compatible. <br />Russ stated no and it would be called a specific plan. <br />Lipton stated although we can’t speculate uses, Staff’s recommendation appears to <br />be steering our review of this application. <br />Russ stated he disagreed. Staff is comparing this application to what the current <br />vacant use is on a fiscal economic level. Obviously this request is preferred over a <br />continued vacant use. <br />Lipton asked for the process to be explained again so all can understand the <br />process. <br />Russ provided a review of the process. <br />Russell asked what percent of a use in a Mixed Use area makes it a mixed use. <br />Russ stated more than one use establishes mixed used. <br />O’Connell asked for more detail on the parking. <br />Russ explained how staff reviewed the project for parking based on apartment uses. <br />Lipton asked why the parking management plan is not part of the preliminary <br />application requirement. <br />Russ stated a condition of approval could be added regarding a parking management <br />plan. <br />O’Connell clarified with staff regarding the requirement for the height variance and it <br />being based on the parking garage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.