My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2016 04 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2016 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2016 04 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:13:39 PM
Creation date
5/18/2016 10:15:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2016 04 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 19, 2016 <br />Page 5 of 17 <br />Council member Stolzmann thought what was agreed upon was Community <br />Commercial (CC) and Commercial Business (CB) would not allow residential. SRU is <br />not taken away, but residential uses in those zone districts would not be compatible <br />Other SRU's could be used in other instances. <br />Council member Leh agreed Council member Loo thought the difficulty would be the <br />redevelopment of those zone districts if they already contain residential <br />Planner Robinson said this was where direction was needed. Should currently allowed <br />residential be allowed with redevelopment <br />Council member Loo was concerned if there was no SRU across the board, current <br />uses could not be allowed with redevelopment. <br />Mayor Muckle proposed trusting staff to bring back legislation to generally preclude <br />residential as a possible use by special review in these zone districts and address <br />grandfathering of present uses <br />Mayor Muckle asked for discussion on heights <br />Council member Maloney asked about the Regal area on the map in the packet. He <br />was concerned about the height allowances near the adjacent homes and wanted to <br />protect the property owners from being in the shadow of commercial buildings. <br />Planner Robinson noted the recommendation from the last meeting was to put in a <br />residential transition standard, which is currently in the mixed use zoning, which says <br />within a certain distance of existing residential the maximum height is limited Those <br />heights would be fleshed out with the design guidelines. The plan now calls for <br />additional buffers against existing residential but is not represented on the map but in <br />the text of the document <br />Council member Stolzmann wanted the text developed for the guidelines also be shown <br />clearly in the graphic. <br />Council member Leh asked about the Main Street crossing and underpasses. He <br />addressed the text concerning the new note directing staff to continuously evaluate the <br />area need for an underpass He requested the underpass be included as part of the <br />South Boulder Road traffic improvements and recommended the public improvements <br />chart include the underpass at Main Street and South Boulder Road. <br />Mayor Muckle supported the idea of exploring an underpass near Main Street. He <br />noted it would be expensive and has to be done with an engineering point of view, with <br />some flexibility and support of staff language to improve the crossing in the meantime. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.