My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-07-25
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-07-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2012 3:05:48 PM
Creation date
12/7/2012 3:05:45 PM
Metadata
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />Parks. She stated she would be on the committee for selecting a consultant and as the process <br />evolved with more details, she would convey the information to the Plan Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert asked about the draft language, with regard to the consultant that wins the RFQ, he <br />asked for the Plan Commission to be updated on the progress. <br /> <br />The Plan Commission reviewed the draft language. <br /> <br />are on the table for the Comprehensive Plan and we want to convey that to all aspects of the <br />community. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked if it should be explicitly stated that the Plan Commission recommend the <br />report be approved as an amendment to the existing 2005 Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert stated it should not because that was what would happen when approved. Mr. <br />proceed. <br /> <br />there was usually a recommendation letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert stated it was in a letter from him and in that letter it would have to be clear what the <br />recommendation was. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti stated it would say it was a recommendation from the Plan Commission for an <br />official amendment to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked if that meant following this meeting and getting amendments back from the <br />consultant, the Plan Commission would vote in August. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert asked if there were any more comments or questions from staff or the Plan <br />Commission pertaining to the proposed language. <br /> <br />The Plan Commission and staff agreed with the proposed language (see Page 14). <br /> <br />Tim Breihan with H3 Studio, project consultant, stated that during the discussion, there was a <br />general question about what the plan document needs to contain in order to satisfy the work plan <br />and the contract the City has made with the federal government for the grant money. He stated <br />there needed to be an acknowledgment of the parking issues in the Plan and parking issues <br />needed to be addressed; something that the consultants had been in discussion with City staff <br />about. He stated that as long as parking issues were addressed as in quantification of existing <br />parking spaces and ratios identified as well as recommendation for increasing the amount of <br />spaces for new development and either preserving the existing ratio or providing more parking <br />for the amount of density than what currently exists, he did not see an issue with removing the <br />tm; <br /> E <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.