My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
11/12/2020 1:49:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
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.
/
52
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 />November 29, 2012 <br />Page 10 of 11 <br />Brauneis stated the area is swimming in office, so the residential component would <br />be very attractive. <br />Lipton agreed. <br />Russell stated Option #3 does not establish this area as residential. He added if <br />Option #4 is forwarded then there would be a specific area plan to drive the details of <br />this area. <br />O’Connell stated the residential numbers will drive more life into the area. <br />Russell inquired if there is an opportunity to approve Option #3 but keep the door <br />open to consider residential in a specific area plan. He added the same could be <br />done if Option #4 is approved. <br />Lipton stated there could be Option #3.5 which allows for residential south of Century <br />Drive but prohibits it north of the drive. <br />Russell stated he believes this could be done later. <br />Brauneis inquired if there could be an Option #3.5. <br />Russ stated the Commission could make any option they would like. <br />Brauneis stated he liked the idea of splitting the residential. <br />Moline inquired why an option needs to be chosen. <br />Russ stated it is important to guide the future specific area plan. He stated a hybrid <br />between Option #3 and #4 makes sense. <br />Planning Commission – Action <br />Lipton moved to approve Option #4, limiting the residential to the south of Century <br />Drive. <br />Brauneis seconded the motion. <br />Motion approved 5 – 2. (Russell and Tengler were opposed). <br />Lipton directed staff to provide qualifying language which would provide guidance to <br />the FAR. <br />Commission agreed with this statement. <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton Yes <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Jeff Moline Yes <br />Ann O’Connell Yes <br />Cary Tengler No <br />Steve Brauneis Yes <br />Scott Russell No <br />Motion passed: 5 to 2 <br />Planning Commission Comments –
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.