My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 09 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2018 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 09 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:11 AM
Creation date
9/17/2018 1:36:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2018 09 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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, 2018 <br />Page 10 of 12 <br />Dean stated that each PUD needed a traffic assessment. The applicant was putting up <br />a financial guarantee for the signal in the subdivision agreement. <br />Zuccaro added that C-DOT controls whether something warrants a signal after an <br />applicant submits a traffic study. <br />Hsu asked if the other parties would have to do another assessment in the future if the <br />payment were to be deferred. <br />Dean confirmed that with each application would require an updated appraisal of the <br />property. <br />Williams asked what kinds of businesses would front the church. <br />Dean stated that there was a list of approved uses for the zone. <br />Williams asked if drive-thrus were an approved use. <br />Zuccaro stated that drive-thrus were SRUs. He added that the development was being <br />laid out for individual buildings such as banks and buildings and not an in -line strip mall <br />layout. <br />Brauneis asked for the applicant presentation. <br />Pastor Jim Candy described his church's involvement in community engagement and <br />his plans to use the new location for more such engagement. He described the risks to <br />the church in moving to a new place and conducting a building project. He explained <br />why they were asking to defer the land fees, saying that Ascent Church could not afford <br />to take on those fees and the other applicants were requesting the deferrals. He <br />addressed the subdivision modification request and described how the PUD met the <br />criteria. He stated that this was a unique situation with three different owners so it was <br />not setting precedent. He did not think that the property would ever be developed <br />concurrently among the three owners. Finally, he stated that the City would benefit from <br />the application by getting land, cash, commercial development and tax revenue. Getting <br />the deferment was a faster path to getting the cash -in -lieu, since the development itself <br />would help the other owners pay it back. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of the applicant. <br />Moline asked if Ascent Church was a tenant or an owner at the Sam's Club Location. <br />Candy replied that they were tenants. <br />Williams asked what Candy predicted for the commercial development of the building. <br />Candy stated that there was interest in the front due to afternoon traffic, but he could not <br />say specifically who had expressed interest. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.