My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2012 08 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2012 08 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:20 AM
Creation date
1/31/2013 8:46:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2012 08 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />August 9, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />Russell, Robinson and Tengler discussed a way to have the condition address the <br />sales record as a ratio. The example given was to allow a wholesale volume of 5 with <br />a retail volume of 1. <br />Frazee stated he would agree to a ratio of volume calculations. <br />Brauneis stated a 5 to 1 does not sound secondary. <br />O’Connell stated the condition seems to be unnecessary because this is a special <br />review use application and if there are complaints then the application can be called <br />up by the Commission for a re-hearing. <br />Lipton agreed with O’Connell and stated the SRU approval is revocable. <br />Robinson stated staff is okay with the removal of the condition. <br />Public Comment: <br />None heard. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staff and Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion: <br />Russell stated his support of the application. He also suggested removing the <br />condition as originally recommended by staff. <br />Moline, Pritchard, Lipton, O’Connell, Tengler and Brauneis stated their agreement <br />with Russell’s comments. <br />Lipton moved and Pritchard seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 16, Series <br />2012 with no conditions. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton Yes <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Ann O’Connell Yes <br />Cary Tengler Yes <br />Jeff Moline Yes <br />Steve Brauneis Yes <br />Scott Russell Yes <br />Motion passed: 7 to 0 <br /> <br />Discussion / 2012 Goal Review and 2013 Goal Setting: <br /> <br />Russ reminded the board of the CC and PC Study Session set for September 11, <br />2012. He continued with a discussion of the 2012 -2013 Goal review and setting. <br />Lipton discussed the importance of the following goals: subdivision re-plat criteria; <br />Transportation; HWY 42 crossing; and bus shelters. <br />Russ and Lipton discussed the importance of the work plan and how important it is <br />for the Commissioners to agree on the goals. <br />Russell stated the fee structure for an enclave annexation should be re-evaluated. <br />He asked how many enclaves are left to be annexed. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.