My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 02 11 ConocoPhillips
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 02 11 ConocoPhillips
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:44:29 PM
Creation date
4/6/2010 9:27:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Signed Date
2/11/2010
Cross-Reference
#03
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 02 11 ConocoPhillips
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
324
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 />DECEMBER 10, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Tengler discussed Item #1 on page 4. It appears that City Council is given a lot of <br />flexibility, so does this process still include Planning Commission. <br />McMillan stated it does. <br />Tengler asked if shared parking would carry a maximum distance from site <br />clause. <br />McMillan stated the proposed location would be required as part of the parking <br />study. He also asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that shared and remote <br />parking already exists in Louisville. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments <br />Hartman stated her support for the parking credits an - .•ressed her concern for <br />remote and shared parking for downtown. <br />Loo stated her reluctance in all but especially in sired par <br />Lipton stated he is not sold on the idea of an on -street parking it. He would <br />support giving relief for parking on case se bases instead of . cross the <br />board. He also likes the shared parking b t the remote parking. <br />Pritchard stated he would like to look at the s <br />Tengler expressed his concern <br />concerned with shared parking a <br />Sheets stated her concerns with th <br />stated she does not believe there is <br />d parking a little more. <br />three parrying topics. He is especially <br />ppens when a property use changes. <br />reditsr and�reductions. She also <br />of pat!ng in downtown. <br />Roll CaII Vote: <br />Lipton moved aoo secon' a motion to not move forward with on -street <br />parking credit, the ote • - • •ic and • continue the shared parking topic <br />to allow stafyfdditio • - guage. <br />e <br />VA <br />f Lipton <br />Yes <br />. Pritchard <br />Yes <br />Su . Loo <br />Yes <br />Gail an <br />Yes <br />Monica is <br />Yes <br />Cary Teng <br />Yes <br />Scott Russell <br />absent <br />Motion passed: <br />6 to 0 <br />Planning Commission provided the following direction to staff in order to bring <br />back an enhanced proposal to the January 14, 2010 meeting: <br />• Look at what other municipalities are doing <br />• What is required in a parking study as well as a definition. <br />• Regarding the shared parking agreement topic look at encumbrances and <br />enforcement. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.