Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council. McAvinew would like to wait until the Annexation Agreement is in place. Mr. Wood <br />stated that before this can be moved forward to City Council, Planning Commission needs to <br />make a recommendation, and that hearing date has already been established. <br /> <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed: <br /> <br />Motion made by Jeff Lipton to approve Resolution No. 1, Series 2000, as presented by Staff <br />without condition. Seconded by Patricia Thompson. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: Patricia <br /> Thompson, Yes; Chris Pritchard, Yes; Tom McAvinew, Yes; Betty <br />Solek, Yes; Jeff Lipton, Yes; Bill Boulet, Yes. Motion passes 6:0. <br /> <br /> <br />D.Resolution No. 2, Series 2000, Airborne Express, Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Business <br />Center at CTC. Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan for a 25,000 S.F. <br />distribution facility (remanded from City Council). <br /> <br />Staff Public Notice Certification: <br /> <br />Ken Johnstone, Principal Planner, certified that public notice was published a second time for this <br />hearing in the Daily Camera on Sunday, December 26, 1999, and mailed and posted on December <br />23, 1999. All Planning Commissioners verified that they were familiar with or had visited the site. <br /> <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br /> <br />Mr. Johnstone stated that the previous hearing before the Commission was on November 18, <br />1999, and the Commission did recommend denial of the application at that time by a <br />unanimous 6:0 vote. Based on the Staff interpretation of those comments and the vote, the <br />primary area of concern was related to architecture. There was additional concern with the <br />number of conditions in the Staff recommended resolution of approval. The applicant did go <br />st <br />to City Council for their hearing on December 21 with the negative recommendation of the <br />Planning Commission. The plans that were submitted to City Council addressed nearly all of <br />what had been the Staff recommended conditions of approval and the applicant also made <br />several modifications to the project, specifically to architecture. After conducting the <br />hearing, City Council passed a motion to remand the application back to the Commission <br />based on the new plans that were submitted to City Council. They felt that the changes were <br />significant enough that they would like additional review and recommendation from the <br />Commission. Mr. Johnstone presented the details of this matter as stated in the staff report. <br /> <br />Questions for Staff: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br />