My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-05-23
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-05-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2012 3:07:40 PM
Creation date
12/7/2012 3:07:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />She found on Page 119 what addressed commercial parking lots and proposed parking lots. She <br />stated she thinks it is a good plan whether Area B is included or not. She is concerned about the <br />artificial boundaries that do not take into account what is on the west side of Kingsland Avenue <br />or the south side of Delmar. She asked if there was any way to look at what is going on outside <br />of the boundaries and what else is available in the vicinity. She stated she is concerned about <br />this corner [Delmar and Kingsland] and has seen its development from the beginning. Kingsland <br />is the only north/south corridor that goes to Page and Olive. It is stated within the plan that a <br />Kingsland trolley could be next. Perhaps there are compromises that could be made. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoal stated that the planning boundaries go to the alley south of Delmar. <br /> <br />Ms. Moran stated that it does not go west of Kingsland. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoal stated that the Loop was challenged with parking and that in the Plan they have <br />increased parking. <br /> <br />Ms. Moran stated that the problem sounds like it is structured parking vs. surface parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai stated that the appendices addressed the parking study. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked if there were any further public comments or questions. There were none. <br /> <br />Zoning Text Amendment Proposed amendment to Article 8 of the Zoning Code <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked for some background information for Ms. Locke as the new member. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai stated that the proposed Text Amendment dates back to the last election. There were <br />some enforcement issues regarding political signs. It generated some reaction about why the <br />ordinance was enforced in the way it was. Staff had been instructed to look into the ordinance <br />and see if it required an amendment. It went before the Code Review Committee first and then <br />to the Plan Commission. The Code Review Committee met and made a recommendation. It <br />came before the Plan Commission at the last meeting at which time it was referred back to the <br />Code Review Committee for further discussion. The Code Review Committee met and made a <br />recommendation which was provided in the packet. Also provided was the memo staff prepared <br />for the Code Review Committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai added that the Plan Commission Chairman indicated on the phone that he supported the <br />recommendation from the Code Review Committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked for questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens added that the recommended language was in Attachment B of the memo included <br />in the packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai stated that legal counsel was in attendance to answer any questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked for clarification about the proposed exemption and the Section it pertained to. <br />tm; E <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.