My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 11 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2017 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 11 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:02:46 AM
Creation date
7/15/2020 12:06:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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 />September 14, 2017 <br />Page 10 of 10 <br />Ritchie asked if the Commission had preferences on the specific questions listed. <br />Hsu suggested that the Council ask more questions in the written form and have longer <br />interviews with fewer people. Hsu stated that part of the reason for the short interview times <br />could be that City Council seemed to interview everyone who applied. <br />Brauneis noted that the Council had to limit the number of pages they had to read, especially <br />when they have over 100 applicants. <br />Rice suggested that the application could limit the number of characters for each answer. <br />Moline asked if staff reviewed applicants. <br />Zuccaro stated that only City Council reviews applicants. <br />Brauneis added that the applications become public domain. <br />Sheets asked if there were a way to pursue what Sheets and Hsu were suggesting. <br />Dean stated that other districts use staff to make recommendations among the larger pool of <br />applicants and give a few applicants to the Council. <br />Pritchard suggested that staff could suggest that process to the mayor. <br />Hsu added that the sustainability board reviewed the applicants and forwarded their <br />recommendations to Council. <br />Pritchard asked for additional comments. Seeing none, he turned to scheduling for October 12tn <br />ITEMS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE REGULAR MEETING: OCTOBER 12T", 2017 <br />808 Main: A request for a Final Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of a <br />two-story rear addition at 808 Main Street (PUD-035-2017). <br />• Applicant: Vern Seieroe <br />• Owner: 808 Main LLC <br />• Case Manager: Lauren Trice, Associate Planner <br />Pritchard asked why the 808 Main item was held up for the past two meetings. <br />Zuccaro stated that staff made requests for revisions and had yet to receive those revisions. <br />Zuccaro reminded the Commission that Rice and Moline were sitting on the design guideline <br />consultant proposal review committee. They received 6 applicants and they will narrow those <br />down to about 4 to interview and by mid- to late -October they would make recommendations to <br />City Council. Zuccaro added that there may be money for the Planning Commission to attend <br />conferences such as the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute or the state American Planning <br />Association Conference next year. Staff is trying to get a budget for two commissioners at a <br />time for at least one conference per year. He asked the Commission to think of what <br />conferences they would like to attend if that funding makes it into the final budget. <br />Adjourn: <br />Pritchard made motion to adjourn, seconded by Brauneis. Pritchard adjourned meeting at 8:12 <br />PM. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.