My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 09 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2025 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 09 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2025 2:56:33 PM
Creation date
9/5/2025 2:29:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
9/11/2025
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.
/
61
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 8, 2025 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Hunt asked to clarify that the references to general conformance would only apply to <br />GDPs that did not specify yard and bulk requirements. <br />Zuccaro confirmed this. <br />Commissioner Discussion: <br />Hunt said that she was in support, and that she liked the idea of providing more certainty <br />to developers. <br />Moline said that he in support, and that the added clarity would be a benefit to the code <br />and a benefit to the community. <br />Choi said that he was in support, and thought it would help ease the development <br />process. <br />Mihaly said that his initial concerns were allayed by the presentations, and that he thought <br />it would help make the city more business friendly. He was in support. <br />Bangs said that while he did not feel the existing PUD waiver process was broken such <br />that it warranted major changes, he was supportive of the amendment as it would help <br />improve the efficiency of the development process. He was in support. <br />Brauneis said that he was in support, and said that this would be beneficial for both <br />developers and the city. <br />Motion to approve Resolution 6, Series 2025, was moved by Hunt and seconded by <br />Moline. The motion was adopted by a vote of 6 to 0. <br />b. Advent Health PUD Amendment (Signage) - Resolution 7, Series 2025, <br />recommending approval of a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />Amendment to replace existing freestanding signs and add a new wall sign on the <br />hospital campus. <br />Staff Presentation: <br />Cline -Gibson introduced the presentation for the PUD amendment. She noted the <br />location of the property, and where the changes to the existing signage were proposed. <br />There had been previous changes to signage in 1997 and 2002 in accordance with <br />periodic hospital rebranding. She also covered proposed waivers for the freestanding and <br />wall signs. Staff found that the application met all of the criteria in the sign code. Staff also <br />found that the requested waivers were appropriate. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommended approval of Resolution 7, Series 2025. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />Choi asked whether all of the signs were proposed to be internally illuminated. <br />Cline -Gibson said yes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.