Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 8, 2015 <br />Page 15 of 23 <br />The public kick off meeting for McCaslin Blvd Small Area Plan on February 19, 2015 at <br />6:30 pm in Council Chambers. <br />New questions on the website are up on the City website. <br />Additional outside communication: <br />Email to Planning Department from Alexandra Bradley received on Wednesday, January 7, <br />2015 regarding Small Area Plan and email from Sid Vinall on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 <br />regarding Small Area Plan. Motion made by Moline to enter emails into the record, seconded <br />by Brauneis. Passed by voice vote. <br />Recess taken at 8:23 pm, resumed at 8:26 pm. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Robinson discusses the changes made to SWOT Table and Principles. <br />• SWOT Table Interpretation <br />Positive <br />Negative <br />Strengths <br />Weaknesses <br />• Parks and open space near <br />0 Pedestrian and bike connections are <br />corridor <br />lacking, uninviting, and perceived as <br />• Physical form of the corridor <br />unsafe <br />Internal <br />(parcel sizes and rights -of- <br />9Conformity to community values <br />way) <br />• Aesthetic Aappearance of corridor <br />• Proximity to existing <br />• Connections to adjacent <br />neighborhoods <br />neighborhoods <br />Opportunities <br />Threats <br />• Corridor as transportation link <br />Impact of <br />• Shops, businesses, and <br />the market and regional <br />services on corridor <br />competition on existing and desired <br />• Valuable mix of uses on <br />land uses <br />• Traffic <br />External <br />corridor <br />0 Train noise and impacts <br />• Lack of community consensus on <br />desires <br />• Upkeep of existing buildings <br />Principle 1 - Provide for safer and more convenient connections across South Boulder Road <br />and Highway 42 for bikes and pedestrians. <br />a) Provide safe and convenient facilities that serve a broad range of users with multiple modes <br />of travel <br />i) Are all modes of travel accommodated? <br />ii) Are users of all ages and ability levels accommodated? <br />iii) Do the improvements proposed provide safer conditions for all users and ability <br />levels? <br />iv) Are existing deficiencies addressed? <br />