My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:31:20 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:26:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/13/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />May 13, 2021 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br />Rice asked about the public works process. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Public Works Department was comfortable having the GDP approved <br />and that the additional work would get finalized with the final plat. <br />Rice observed that the application would need to go through another round of review after <br />public works finalized their work and asked if this schedule was customary. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. He noted that at this stage it was important to assess whether there were <br />going to be any major issues and strains on public works but they were satisfied that the <br />considerations could be handled at plat. <br />Rice asked if sustainability issues would be addressed at later stages. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were plans and language to follow through on those plans to provide <br />a foundation for the PUD stage, where there would be much more detail. <br />Rice stated that public comment had said that the sustainability plans were not detailed enough <br />but he wanted to confirm that those details would come up later. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. <br />Lisa Ritchie stated that the high school structure was about 30 feet tall and the gym roof was <br />around 55 feet tall. <br />Diehl asked if it was customary to have so much height information by parcel in a GDP and <br />noted that this GDP didn't actually approve any heights. <br />Zuccaro replied that ConocoPhillips did contemplate height as did some other GDPs. This one <br />was more detailed as it relates to Code requirements but it was clear that this did not constitute <br />approval. <br />Moline asked for the total city budget. <br />Zuccaro replied that the capital budgets were in the tens of millions. <br />Moline asked if they could ask for greater commitments on some things at this stage. <br />Zuccaro replied that it was worth discussing with the applicant. <br />Moline asked if the clustering would be within each parcel, as opposed to within the entire <br />development. <br />Zuccaro confirmed that clustering applied within parcels. <br />Moline observed that the GDP allowed quite a few uses across the parcels and asked how the <br />development would create a bit more of a community and refine some of those uses, with an <br />eye toward avoiding a hodge-podge development. <br />Zuccaro replied that within certain office and industrial areas there was a provision that only up <br />to 20% could be retail services. He added that you wouldn't get a large mall or an industrial use <br />in those areas but more definition could be provided. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.