Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…
On November 2, 2016 and December 7, 2016, the Development Commission reviewed Site Development Permit (SDP16-00006) during two public hearings. The request was to allow for the construction of two multi-family buildings with a total of 93-units on approximately 5.72 acres.
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
The next meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way
Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like
recommended, requested, directed,
moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify
against the full minutes for context.
a) It was the consensus of all Commissioners present that minutes of the Development Commission meeting on November 20, 2019 be approved as presented.
She said tonight we will be discussing design changes that occurred after the SDP was approved.
She displayed comparisons of the approved SDP for Buildings I and II versus the construction drawings, and described the changes.
He gave some background on the project, and noted that the SDP, which was approved in December 2016, included 55 conditions.
He said we have tried to stay true to the design concept approved by the Commission.
He concluded his remarks by stating that the applicant team believes the proposed facades in the construction drawings are substantially similar to the SDP facades approved by the Commission.
He asked staff to provide their thoughts on the possibility of having a more muted color scheme on that side.
Tolleshaug and Wenzel spoke about the time and effort they spent with the City to identify the shade of yellow that was eventually approved.
We have a project that has already been approved, but that said, he agrees with the points made earlier about being sensitive to those residents who will look at this project, particularly lighting concerns.
He said the project has already been approved, and added he appreciates the opportunity for the Commission to take another look at the project with the proposed changes.
Porter posed four questions, to which the general consensus among the Commissioners was to agree as follows: (1) Is the new proposal consistent with the intent of the approved SDP elevations?
SOWA replied no; the project has been approved, and the Commission’s direction is for the applicant and staff to work together on exploring the above recommendations.