Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 9, 2015 <br />Page 19 of 27 <br />o Identify which, if any, undeveloped parcels should be purchased for park/open <br />space <br />■ Does the ratio of acres to users meet City standards? <br />■ Do public spaces connect to form a cohesive network? <br />o Provide programming to activate public spaces <br />Principle 3 — Enhance bicycle and pedestrian connections to private and public uses. <br />o Provide safe and convenient facilities that serve a broad range of users with <br />multiple modes of travel <br />■ Are all modes of travel accommodated? <br />■ Are users of all ages and ability levels accommodated? <br />■ Do the improvements proposed provide safer conditions for all users and <br />ability levels? <br />■ Are existing deficiencies addressed? <br />■ Do bike and pedestrian facilities connect to trip beginning and end points? <br />o Design solutions that the City can realistically maintain over time <br />o Promote regional trail connectivity within the study area <br />o Is a connection provided through the study area to Davidson Mesa and the new <br />underpass under US 36 at Davidson Mesa? <br />Principle 4 — Utilize policy and design to encourage desired uses to locate in the <br />corridor and to facilitate the reuse or redevelopment of vacant buildings. <br />o Do allowed uses serve community needs as defined in survey and elsewhere? <br />o Are allowed uses supported by the market? <br />■ To what extent are incentives and/or public infrastructure partnerships <br />needed to induce identified uses to locate in the study area? <br />■ To what extent do uses capitalize on investments at the US 36 <br />interchange and Bus Rapid Transit station? <br />o Does the land use mix demonstrate strong fiscal benefits? <br />o Is the process for approving desired uses and desired character simpler and <br />more predictable? <br />Principle 5 - Establish design regulations to ensure development closely reflects the <br />community's vision for the corridor while accommodating creativity in design. <br />o Physical form should incorporate desires expressed in the community survey and <br />elsewhere <br />o Ensure signage and landscape regulations allow for adequate business visibility <br />without detracting from aesthetic qualities of the corridor <br />■ Does signage clearly direct visitors to businesses without appearing <br />overbearing or too cluttered? <br />■ Does landscaping provide for a pleasant visitor experience while still <br />providing visibility to businesses? <br />■ Allow flexibility to respond to changes in market requirements, design <br />trends, and creativity in design <br />Tentative Schedule <br />o April 9 — Planning Commission Review <br />o May 5 — City Council endorsement <br />o June — Walkability Audit and Placemaking Workshop <br />o Summer — Public meeting #3 — develop alternatives <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />No questions from Commissioners. <br />Two emails entered into record, motion made by Brauneis, seconded by Moline. <br />Public Comment: <br />