My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-10-16 Zoning and Annexation
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
Zoning and Annexation
>
10-10-16 Zoning and Annexation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:37:47 AM
Creation date
11/10/2016 10:43:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Ms. Smith confirmed that that was the bill that was heard. She assured everyone that the three - <br />hundred (300) foot list was generated from all of the property addresses as was our <br />advertisement. We don't advertise the legal description but that was what was represented and <br />heard at the Commission meeting. <br />Committeemember Broden asked about the yard signages and mail notices that are put out on <br />these properties typically. <br />Ms. Smith stated that those are put out based on whatever recommendation Larry Magliozzi <br />gives. Our legal obligation is the publication in the newspaper, but we followed the other <br />procedures that we typically do. <br />Committee Chair Davis asked if that goes to the owner of the property. <br />Ms. Smith stated it goes to everybody within three - hundred (300) feet of the extreme edges of <br />the development. <br />Committeemember Ferlic motioned to accept the Substitute Bill No. 41 -16, Committeemember <br />Voorde seconded and it carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. <br />Committee Chair Davis stated that a schedule would need to be set up, and recommended that <br />reports be distributed in a formal way so we can have more of a discussion on October 24, 2016. <br />He then asked Ms. Smith for a brief summary of the explanation of the PUD versus the mixed <br />use and all of that to give the public a better understanding. <br />Ms. Smith stated that there probably would not be time to complete a full traffic study, but she <br />has forwarded all of their information over to help them do a further analysis, and they were <br />going to try to identify any missing information. They need to know approximately how much <br />traffic they think the grocery store would generate. They also want more information on the <br />number of bedrooms and units associated with the residential, and the final, more specific <br />information on how much office space might be included as well to figure out how many <br />additional cars will need to be accommodated. <br />Committee Chair Davis asked if the second meeting of November, which would give them a <br />month, would be enough time. <br />Ms. Smith stated that she doesn't think that is enough time to do a full traffic study, but it would <br />be enough time to provide more information on the proposal. <br />Councilmember Tim Scott asked the Clerk's Office to add the documents to Dropbox as they are <br />made available. <br />Committee Chair Davis would like to see include the Building Report, Traffic Study documents, <br />Area Plan, Engineering, and a score card on housing that is either in the works or coming online, <br />etc. <br />Ll <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.