Laserfiche WebLink
Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />Lathrop expressed concern that the standard appears to be subjective and questioned how <br />an applicant could meet a subjective standard. He questioned why staff would <br />recommend using rock mulch versus a crushed granite material when a crushed granite <br />material is an acceptable material in the Industrial Development Design Standards & <br />Guidelines. He agreed that the project contains substantial changes from the one <br />presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission should review <br />it again. <br /> <br />Howard asked when the applicant made changes to the proposal and when the applicant <br />last went before the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Wood replied that the Planning Commission met November 18, 1999 and staff received <br />the revised proposal approximately December 20, 1999. <br /> <br />Howard agreed with Lathrop regarding the ambiguous nature of the Industrial <br />Development Design Standards & Guidelines. He expressed concern for approving a <br />project that looks fine but has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. He asked <br />Wood when the Planning Commission would be able to review the project, if the <br />applicant were instructed to present the revised plans before the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Wood replied that the next meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2000. <br /> <br />Howard asked Maddox if he could present the revised proposal at the January 11, 2000 <br />Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Maddox replied, yes. <br /> <br />Keany asked whether the plans could come back for City Council's review at the January <br />18 meeting if the Planning Commission approves them on January 11. <br /> <br />Simmons replied, yes. <br /> <br />Keany asked Wood whether the Planning Commission would be able to review the <br />revisions and forward the project onto City Council or whether additional action would <br />be required. <br /> <br />Wood replied that if the project goes to Planning Commission, by nature of the process, it <br />becomes a new hearing. <br /> <br />Keany agreed that the proposal should go back before the Planning Commission. He <br />questioned how the sides of the building could be articulated and still accomplish the <br />purpose that the building was designed for. He encouraged Planning Commission to <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />