Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 9, 2017 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Sheets says I am generally in support of this. I have not heard much to discourage me from it. <br />Rice says this strikes me as being very reasonable. I think what is suggested about density is <br />spot on. This does not change the character of the density in this area. Having two single family <br />residences is far preferable to the multi -family situation. I support it. <br />O'Connell says I am in agreement. It sounds like it is wisely thought through for the <br />neighborhood plan. I am in favor. <br />Brauneis says I appreciate the neighbor's concerns. I still find myself in support of it. <br />Moline says I am agreement with you. This seems like a perfect example of the kind of <br />application that fits this minor subdivision perfectly. <br />Hsu says I am in support. <br />Pritchard says I am in support. We did have a discussion briefly about the improvements to the <br />alley such as asphalt. We have talked about tying that in as a condition to PC approval. <br />Rice says the condition should read: the applicant commits to improving Parbois Lane to the <br />west of the property. <br />Motion made by Rice to approve 533 County Road Subdivision, Resolution 08, Series 2017: <br />A resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision to create two separate lots at 533 <br />County Road, <br />1. The applicant must comply with the Public Works Memo dated February 22, 2017 prior <br />to the City Council public hearing. <br />2. The applicant commits to improving Parbois Lane to the west of the property. <br />seconded by O'Connell. Roll call vote. <br />Name <br />Vote <br />Chris Pritchard <br />Yes <br />Ann O'Connell <br />Yes <br />Steve Brauneis <br />Yes <br />Jeff Moline <br />Yes <br />Tom Rice <br />Yes <br />David Hsu <br />Yes <br />Monica Sheets <br />Yes <br />Motion passed/failed: <br />Pass <br />Motion passes 7-0. <br />Discussion/Direction — Citywide Wayfinding Plan <br />Trice presents from Power Point. <br />Are there any concerns regarding the proposed Phase I sign locations? <br />Are there any additional locations that the Planning Commission would recommend? <br />This will be presented to City Council on April 18. <br />Trice describes the original three sign families that went to the public and received public <br />comment. Sign Family 3 was the preferred choice. The consultants are moving forward with this <br />family. In the 2016 approved budget, there is money for signs to distinguish between McCaslin <br />and Downtown. Staff went through the cost estimates provided by the consultant to determine <br />how many signs we could get. That number went into the Phase 1 sign plan. The majority of <br />sign locations to direct people to downtown will be replacing the "finger -pointing" signs and <br />would be mounted on existing poles. Signs are distinguished by letters (A, J, F). Staff is <br />focusing on sign type A and sign type B. Sign type C is intended for a pedestrian monument <br />sign but is too small for vehicular traffic. Included in Phase 1 is sign type F which is a kiosk sign. <br />In the CIP budget for 2017, four interpretative signs have been approved which are sign type G. <br />Sign type F will have a map on one side. Staff has spoken with the DBA and Chamber of <br />Commerce about having a panel on the other side that they would own. They could replace the <br />panel with different businesses and advertisements for Downtown events. Sign type H is <br />intended for pedestrian and J is a vehicular sign. <br />O'Connell says regarding sign type J, the arrow looks very small. Has there been a study to <br />ascertain whether they are visible to drivers? <br />