My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 12 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 12 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:11 AM
Creation date
12/17/2018 4:52:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2018 12 13
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
526
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 />October 11, 2018 <br />Page 3 of 17 <br />Rice asked how a cemetery complied with the Plan. <br />Ritchie responded that staff felt the structure was in line with the existing activity on the <br />church site. <br />Rice asked if staff would feel differently if it were a screened cemetery. <br />Ritchie replied that they had not considered that option, but it was possible they would <br />feel differently. <br />Brauneis asked what would happen if the church wanted to build a wall inside the <br />existing church. <br />Ritchie stated that they would still have to come before the Commission based on the <br />use of the site. <br />Zuccaro responded to the earlier question about privately owned agricultural land in the <br />City, stating that there were several such parcels in the City. <br />Hsu asked what additional steps the application would face after the Commission and <br />Council meetings. He also asked if they could build a wall without cremated remains. <br />Ritchie replied that they would need to go through the building permit process after the <br />meetings. <br />Zuccaro added that in the case where the church was just building a wall, there would <br />be thresholds for administrative review, but most proposals required some kind of <br />review. If you are building a new courtyard, it could require either an SRU amendment <br />or a PUD amendment, regardless of how it is being used. <br />Williams stated that all of her questions were already asked. She asked if an SRU <br />approval in this situation would establish a precedent for other churches. <br />Ritchie stated that every application required the same review process and it would not <br />create a by -right use for anyone else. <br />Hoefner asked to see a rendering of the second design. <br />Ritchie stated that they did not provide renderings for the second design, but there <br />would be stucco and brick visible from the outside similar to the previous design. <br />Hoefner asked if anyone from the City had looked at the existing landscaping. <br />Ritchie stated that the applicant could better address landscaping maintenance, but no <br />one from the City had investigated landscape compliance. <br />Hoefner asked what percentage of the total site would be occupied by the columbarium. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.