My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016.02.25 PC Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2016 PC Packets
>
2016.02.25 PC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2016 12:42:41 PM
Creation date
2/25/2016 12:39:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
2/25/2016
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />January 14, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />Commissioner Rosenquist agreed and stated that it looks like a large massing of wall. <br />Commissioner McRoberts added that the building looks very busy and everything looks very packed into the <br />space. <br />Lentsch asked staff if his application was still going to be on the next City Council agenda. <br />Bear stated that his concept plan is still on the agenda for the next City Council meeting, but if he wanted to <br />change that, it could be discussed at a later time. He stated that the applicant had gotten feedback from the <br />Commission and if he wanted to bring back a revised concept plan to the Planning Commission again before <br />going to the City Council that would be fine. <br />Juba suggested that the Planning Commission give the applicant feedback on phasing, especially related to <br />construction of amenities. <br />Commissioner Knauss stated that she understands that the some amenities are proposed to be installed with <br />building B, but she suggests that the installation/construction of the amenities are split with each phase. She <br />believes that residents shouldn't have to wait for all of the buildings to be built to get amenities and should have <br />access to some immediately. <br />Lentsch stated that he may be able to go back to the original plan and decrease the density if he could negotiate <br />the terms of the PUD, including the construction of roads, with the City. <br />Juba stated that she believes that the site would allow for different building designs and with some work and <br />creativity, the applicant could get to a point where the site meets the PUD. <br />Appointment to Board of Zoning <br />Juba stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked for staff to provide them with the section of <br />the code related to the Board of Zoning. She reminded the Commission that there is a vacancy on the Board of <br />Zoning. She stated she had talked with Commissioner Patzner and Commissioner Lessard after the last meeting <br />and they both agreed that they would be willing to volunteer. <br />Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Knauss amended, Commissioner McRoberts agreed <br />to the amendment, Commissioner Rosenquist seconded, to recommend Commissioner Patzner as the new Board <br />of Zoning member if she is interested. If Commission Patzner states she is no longer interested, the <br />Commission recommends Commissioner Lessard. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee <br />Juba stated that there is also an opening for a Planning Commission member to be added to the Ordinance <br />Review Committee. <br />The Commission directed staff talk to Commissioner Arcand to see if he would be interested in this role. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.