My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 02 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2000 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 02 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 2:09:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2000 02 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 /> <br />Commissioner McDermott asked if they have done this kind of metal panel before. Mr. <br />O’Connor stated that this is a new type of panel for them. Mr. Seibert stated that he has used a <br />similar product. The panel withstands time; it is virtually maintenance free and has a 20-year <br />warranty on it. McDermott asked about reflection. Seibert stated that there is virtually no <br />reflection. <br /> <br />There was discussion regarding the Peak to Peak Charter School that would be one of the tenants <br />in this project. Staff and the Commission pointed out that the Peak to Peak Charter School is not <br />part of this application at present and therefore cannot be considered with this application. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish asked what other tenants they expect to be in the other two buildings. Mr. <br />O’Connor stated that they will be more of the research and development area. Kalish is <br />concerned with the break area issue if there are more than 6 employees per tenant. <br /> <br />Staff Summary: <br /> <br />Ken Johnstone stated that Staff welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with the applicant. <br />Mr. Johnstone believes that all of the issues that are not resolved at this time can be resolved. <br />Staff is recommending denial with the 11 bases in the Staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Applicant Summary: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments / Vote: <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson likes the project however, she would recommend that the applicant asks <br />for a continuance. <br /> <br />Commissioner McDermott would also like to see a more complete presentation of this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton agrees that he does not have the proper information he needs to do his job <br />as a Commissioner at this time. He would not be able to approve a plan at this time. Lipton <br />requested that in the event that the applicant comes back to the Planning Commission, he would <br />request that more detail of the articulation of the building be provided. Lipton does not <br />particularly care for the colors. It is too bland and he would like to see more variation. <br /> <br />Terry O’Connor stated that he does not agree with Staff’s report and acknowledged that he will <br />work with Staff to come into agreement with them. He believes that a continuance at this point in <br />time is the best thing for this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish also stated that she does not have enough information at this time to even <br /> <br /> 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.