My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 05 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2014 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 05 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:30:13 AM
Creation date
5/12/2014 11:03:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2014 05 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 />April; 10, 2014 <br />Page 7 of 37 <br />doesn’t know the age of the building and whether this is the best use of the building. <br />That is the property owner’s right. He does see this as a pseudo-subdivision. He <br />knows what the guidelines state, but he thinks it really is being subdivided with two <br />different buildings on it. It is allowed but he doesn’t necessarily agree with it. This is his <br />opportunity to say this. Preservation of the community is good. The use of the alley will <br />show whether this is a concern as it is only 10’ wide. He knows that the property to the <br />north will probably be developing and the property on the south has talked about <br />redeveloping. There is going to be some change on that corner. <br />Moline says he looked at the northern elevation and had some of the same concerns. <br />The staff report says that the IBC requires all buildings located within 5’ of a property <br />line to be constructed with fire rated materials and may not have any openings. He <br />assumes this is within 5’ of the line. <br />McCartney says yes, absolutely. <br />Moline says he assumes the reason for this wall appearance is to meet the code. <br />Pritchard says he knows it is. He says it doesn’t inspire him as there is no equal-sized <br />building next to it. It will be visible until something happens to the north with a higher <br />and better use; then it is a mute point. In the interim, it is not the image he would like to <br />see. <br />Rice says he had the same presumption that Moline did. Until this area redevelops, <br />there aren’t many choices to do with the north wall. It will have another “nothing” wall <br />that faces it. He sees they didn’t have much choice. <br />Pritchard says we will have to live with the view. <br />Motion made by Brauneis to approve Resolution No. 03, Series 2014: 931 Main Street, <br />seconded by Rice with the two conditions. <br />NameVote <br />Chris PritchardNo <br />Jeff Moline Yes <br />Ann O’Connell Yes <br />Cary Tengler Yes <br />Steve Brauneis Yes <br />Scott Russell Yes <br />Tom Rice Yes <br />Motion passed/failed: Pass <br />Motion passes. <br /> Community Food Share Signs: A request for a planned unit <br />development (PUD) amendment to allow additional signs at 650 Taylor <br />Avenue. <br />Applicant, Owner and Representative: Community Food Share <br />Case Manager: Scott Robinson, Planner I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.