My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2013 10 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2013 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2013 10 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:21 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 3:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2013 10 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Planning Commission <br />MeetingMinutes <br />October 10, 2013 <br />Page 3of 8 <br />None heard. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />McCartney presented from a Power Point explaining this project involved two separate <br />requests: <br />1.Request of a 3 year extension for the existing PUD; <br />2.Propose an optional site design, which would allow for phased development. <br />McCartney added the project is located in the CTC area, zoned industrial, and has had <br />a previous time extension. He added the new proposed development is an alternative <br />option: <br />Single story, 30 feet tall <br />83,291 SF <br />Could be built in two phases –northern most section would be built first. <br />Same access points, landscaping, and façade treatments <br />Staff recommends approval of the application <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Moline asked staff what the sidewalk situation is. <br />McCartney stated CTC has a sidewalk plan which requires a single sidewalk on only <br />one side of the road. The application complies with the existing layout. <br />Brauneis inquired about the water usage data. <br />Lipton asked about the water usage data and asked if Public Works reviews the water <br />supply for each development. <br />McCartney stated Public Works does review all of the plans for potential water usage. <br />Lipton asked if water usage increase requires an amendment to the PUD. <br />Russ stated it would not require an amendment, it would require an upgrade to the <br />water tap. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Wendell Picket, owner, stated he was in favor of staff’s presentation and <br />recommendation. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />Public Comment: <br />None heard. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />None heard. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.