My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2004 06 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2004 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2004 06 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:15 AM
Creation date
9/10/2014 12:40:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2004 06 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
APPROVED <br /> <br />September 14, 2004 <br /> <br />Lipton: <br /> Requested information on the timing for development of the property. <br />Rick stated that development would start in the next 5-6 years while the church plans to start <br />within the next 2 years. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: None <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Deborski: <br />Directed his questions to Wood. If approved what cost of roadway would be the <br />responsibility of the owners? <br />Wood: At the time of Subdivision Agreement the cost share would be included in that agreement <br />as would the other public site improvement costs. <br /> <br />Loo: <br />Discussed condition #4 related to the permitted uses. <br />Wood: Stated that staff has requested from the applicant a specific definition and review of all <br />the proposed uses. <br /> <br />Loo: <br />If a use is included in the GDP what does that mean? <br />Wood: Uses that are listed in a GDP can be in the following area: permitted, special review and <br />excluded. Those uses would also be subject to development standards that would be part of the <br />detailed agreement. <br /> <br />Deborski: <br />Does the plan include Commuter Rail options? <br />Wood: The site is not being considered as a potential location for commuter rail. <br /> <br />Loo: <br />In Zone 2, does the * mean that the use is by special review use? Can all uses in that zone <br />be by SRU only. <br />Wood: Yes, they could be. <br /> <br />Pritchard: <br />Did not have questions but is requesting that staff address the uses with the applicant <br />to give the City more control over the uses. He also expressed concern with the traffic study and <br />his desire for more detail. <br /> <br />McDermott: <br />Requested that the current terminology of long-term care and assisted living be <br />used. <br />Wood: While it would be good to use those terms, the City is restricted to the current wording in <br />the ordinance, which is nursing home and rest home. <br /> <br />Staff and Applicant Summary and Recommendation: <br />Wood: Based on Commission direction staff is committed to going back with the applicant to <br />take a closer look at the permitted use groups. Otherwise Staff is recommending approval with 4 <br />conditions. <br /> <br />Rick: Summarized that the application is consistent with the three exiting annexation <br />agreements, the direction given by City Council and with the current Comprehensive Plan <br />therefore they are requesting approval. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.