My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-17 Zoning and Annexation
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
2017
>
Zoning and Annexation
>
01-23-17 Zoning and Annexation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2017 10:57:17 AM
Creation date
4/25/2017 10:57:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Committee Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
1/23/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning this property to MU, Mixed-Use, will <br /> allow for the continuation of retail development and infill development that complements the <br /> transition from the more intense commercial uses to the west and the single-family residential to <br /> the east. <br /> Committeemember Oliver Davis asked, In working with the new potential developers, was there <br /> any conversation about them needing to correspond or talk with their next-door neighbors? <br /> Ms. Smith responded, When we have petitioners that come into our property, we often encourage <br /> them to reach out to their neighbors. We also encourage them to reach out to their <br /> Councilpeople. It is not a requirement, but it is something we always encourage people to do, <br /> because we notify everybody within three-hundred(300) feet of the property. <br /> Committeemember Oliver Davis asked if the Area Plan Commission staff ever check back in <br /> with developers to see if they have spoken with neighbors or not. <br /> Ms. Smith explained that it is not a requirement but a suggestion, so the APC does not typically <br /> follow up with developers to see if they have met with anybody. <br /> Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, With regard to the Department of Community <br /> Investment's agency comments,the building should be designed to create more active street <br /> frontage—is that included in the design? What are they aiming at with that?And then the other <br /> comment: a taller building element for the use. All these appear to be design-related. So, I'm just <br /> curious about how much detail there is in the plan for the Lincoln Way Corridor; how much <br /> detail that gets into, in terms of design standards. <br /> Ms. Smith responded, The Mixed-Use District calls for a pedestrian-oriented building because it <br /> pushes the building toward the front of the property. At least fifty percent (50%) of the building <br /> has to be located between the minimum setback and the maximum setback. Their positioning of <br /> the building addresses that. The Department of Community Investment was looking for a taller <br /> entryway to kind of help denote that. <br /> Committeemember Broden asked, So, is this above and beyond the Mixed-Use development <br /> standards? <br /> Ms. Smith responded, The architecture that they are showing on the building exceeds what was <br /> required by the ordinance. <br /> Committemember Broden asked, Are there any intended sidewalks that either the developer puts <br /> in themselves, or in partnership with the City? That would be in reference to pedestrian access <br /> issues. <br /> Ms. Smith responded, Any sidewalk requirements would come from the Engineering <br /> Department. If during the site plan review for the new construction they determine that they <br /> wanted them to build a sidewalk there,they can require that. I could not answer the question as <br /> to whether or not they required it,though. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.