My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 01 24
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1995 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 01 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2021 12:31:40 PM
Creation date
7/15/2021 12:15:14 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.
/
24
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
Commissioner VanNostrand - Okay, I will change that to read, "which also shows shorter light <br />standards along the southern edge of the parking areas". <br />Motion seconded with amendment to Condition # 3. <br />Roll Call Vote: Jeffrey Lipton - Yes; Kathleen Neal - Yes; Russ VanNostrand - Yes; Rex <br />Renfrew - Yes; Tom McAvinew - Yes; Bill Boulet - Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 6 - 0. <br />B. Stairs Inc. - Final PUD Development Plan <br />Chairperson Boulet opened the public hearing. <br />Notice/Posting - Peter Kernkamp certified the public hearing notice/posting. <br />Commission Memhers Disclosures - All members visited the site, with the exception of <br />Commissioner Lipton. <br />Staff Presentation - Peter Kernkamp gave the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the <br />Final PUD Development Plan with conditions as stated in staff report. <br />P/C Questions to Staff <br />Q. With conditions #1 and #2, I don't see where you are actually requiring a total of 24, or 26, <br />parking spaces. Did you want to add any language that would be more specific in terms of <br />parking units? <br />A. A revised plan has been submitted which addresses that. That does bring it up to 26 spaces <br />which is more than the minimum required by code. <br />Q. I know there is a minimum required by code, however, if we consistently see on -street <br />parking do we have any reason to go beyond the minimum number? <br />A. Yes. There is still an outstanding issue with the second part of condition #2. With regard <br />to the overflow parking area on the adjacent property, that is under the same ownership, we <br />do have some concerns. It would appear that is being used by employees and what they are <br />doing currently is driving over the curb. There is some concern by Public Works that may <br />cause deterioration of the curb, and that it may be appropriate to install a curb cut to provide <br />access to the overflow parking. The applicant may be able to address their anticipated <br />fluctuations in employment levels. It does appear, at this point, that there is some off street <br />parking taking place. At this point in time it is not a major concern, but as the park <br />develops that may become more problematic. <br />Q. My understanding of the park is to not have any off street parking. Is there a way we could <br />strongly encourage the employees to use the other lot, assuming the curb cut was put in? <br />A. That is correct. At the present time, it is not signed for no on street parking, so it is, at this <br />point in time, legal to park on the street. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.