My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 02 02
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 02 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:37 PM
Creation date
2/2/2015 11:45:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2015 02 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Business Retention & Development Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 5, 2015 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />affordability issue. Main Street realignment makes sense and doing underpass at the same <br />time. Connectivity is important but what will people do with it'? <br />Chair Dalton said if big box stores wanted to be here they would already be here. He came <br />away with: form based zoning sounds like a wonderful concept. It could provide certainty, <br />predictability and fairness to those seeking to redevelop. Form based code is more about how <br />it looks and feels rather than what is in it. <br />Chair Dalton said you don't have to have vertical mixed use, it can be horizontal. SoBoRd <br />small area plan can discuss. Cost of tunnels is prohibitive but agrees that we need a plan for <br />reorientation of Main Street. We should pursue that. <br />Commissioner Menaker said there was a remarkable lack of candor in the meeting. Chair <br />Dalton said the City is moving forward with surveying developers about the land development <br />process. <br />Council member Loo said it is a minor point but physical setting of meeting was not good. <br />Council member Lipton said once zoning is in place the process is pretty efficient. There is a <br />lot of certainty of outcome. Discussion of process and ease of process. <br />Commissioner Chris Pritchard said other communities can be more accommodating because <br />they have more land. Connectivity does need to be looked at. Form based is a good idea. <br />Citizens want something different than developers. Maybe go one on one with developers to <br />get more information. <br />There was a discussion of the SoBoRd survey. <br />Justin McClure said the conversation of process was good. Also likes form based. Likes <br />predictability. <br />Rick Brew said the PUD process can be difficult. Proposed projects need some sort of <br />variance and that creates uncertainty and negotiations with City Staff. <br />Deputy City Manager will make sure these comments get to Planning for the Small Area Plan <br />process. <br />BRaD ADVOCACY DISCUSSION <br />Vice Chair Lathrop led discussion of BRaD advocating back in October. How can BRaD <br />advocate for City -wide issues as well as quasi - judicial issues? <br />In taking an advocate role, is the makeup of the BRaD Committee appropriate? <br />Is the BRaD Committee the appropriate entity for advocacy? <br />What are other communities doing to fill the role? <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.