My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 10 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2024 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 10 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2024 3:22:58 PM
Creation date
10/15/2024 9:14:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
10/10/2024
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.
/
189
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 />July 11, 2024 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />Post noted that the required width of a detached sidewalk was 5 feet, that the required <br />width for a treed lawn was 8 feet, and that the sidewalks directly north and south of the <br />property were attached sidewalks. <br />Discussion by Commissioners: <br />Hunt said that she appreciated the creativity in the varying designs and types of the <br />housing. She was in favor. <br />Mihaly said that he was conflicted about the proposal due to the limited pedestrian <br />access, though he acknowledged the limitations of the site. He disagreed with the <br />rationale that less open space was necessary due to the surrounding parkland. He was <br />concerned that the busy streets nearby could lead residents to drive to the parks rather <br />than simply walking. He thought that it would be positive for downtown, however, and he <br />also appreciated that it would create new affordable housing units. <br />Moline noted that even though there was a park not too far away, the railroad acted as <br />major barrier. <br />Choi said that he liked the final application more than the preliminary application. He said <br />that he liked the diversity in housing types. He noted that each house would still have its <br />own backyard, so he was less concerned about access to open space. He thought that it <br />was a good development, and was in support. <br />Baskett said that she was in support. She particularly appreciated the added diversity of <br />housing stock for the City. She wished that there could be better pedestrian access to the <br />site, though she acknowledged the challenges in allowing for this. <br />Moline said that he was in support. <br />Motion to approve Resolution 8, Series 2024 was moved by Hunt and seconded by <br />Baskett. The motion was adopted by a vote of 5 to 0. <br />PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — INFORMATION ITEM <br />a) Comprehensive Plan Update — project status informational update <br />Brackett provided an informational update on the status of the Comprehensive Plan. She <br />directed all comments from Commissioners to Planning Manager Jeff Hirt. <br />There was a discussion about the public outreach being conducted for the Plan. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br />None were heard. <br />STAFF COMMENTS <br />None were heard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.