My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 06 24
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 06 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:32:20 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:26:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/24/2021
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 />June 24, 2021 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br />before with a right -out to 42. Bair added that neighbor feedback did not want headlights <br />or cars exiting the site toward their neighborhood, which is why it was an access point <br />only. <br />Williams asked about the movement at Summit View and 42. <br />Bair replied that north -bound traffic would use the light and that it would be a way to exit <br />and go north. Summit View would be the third choice for commercial traffic according to <br />their study. <br />Williams stated that the fact that commercial traffic could not go north at Summit Drive <br />and 42 would be frustrating. <br />Bair replied that north -bound traffic would use the light to exit and go northbound. He <br />stated that the arrows were confusing on Figure 2 because they only showed one-way <br />traffic where there was two-way traffic; all except the Kaylix access should have arrows <br />going out. <br />Diehl asked about the letter of intent for the concurrency requirements, asking that <br />without a letter what was to say that the commercial would get developed. <br />Bair replied that was why they had divided the commercial into two parts to build the <br />first half of that portion, since until development began it was hard to get tenants to <br />commit. <br />Diehl asked if there was a single commercial property on Takoda. <br />Ritchie replied that there were none except in the Kestrel area, but there were no <br />concurrency requirements associated with it. <br />Brauneis asked what it would take to bring back age restrictions. <br />Bair replied that the goal was to allow more inclusive housing to create more vibrancy in <br />the area and not to limit who could live there. <br />Diehl moved to enter addenda 1, 2, and 3 into the record and Williams seconded. <br />Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Brauneis opened public comment. <br />Mark Thompson, 782 Treece Street, stated that he was impressed with the <br />responsiveness of the developer working with the community, and that they had made <br />modifications to the plan based on neighbor feedback. He explained that this property <br />was zoned for commercial and residential when he and his wife had moved in and they <br />had long anticipated a development, but they did not like the pile of dirt. Thompson liked <br />having a mix of people and he did not understand why there would be an age <br />restriction. Overall, he supported the project. <br />Gary Larson, 2189 Park Lane, across from Kaylix, had been involved in the original <br />Foundry process and he felt that Mass Equities was not listening and was pushing their <br />concept. He proposed 34 main -floor master buildings, at 5.88 density per acre, which <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.