My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 03 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2000 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 03 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 2:10:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2000 03 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />Tom Seibert, Architect for O’Connor Development. Mr. Seibert stated that they would like to be able to <br />work with their potential users in order to meet their needs. They do not want to be committed to <br />something like in Condition No. 6. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish asked what the applicant’s intention is with respect to the prairie dogs. Mr. <br />O’Connor stated that their experience has been in the CTC that when they bring the equipment in, the <br />prairie dogs tend to leave and move somewhere else. Therefore they have not had to worry about <br />moving or exterminating them yet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson understands their point of not wanting to put a window on the east elevation <br />and asked about some other kind of relief. <br /> <br />Mr. Seibert stated that if they do need to break up the façade the most logical way is to use windows and <br />do it similar to Building B on the east elevation. <br /> <br />Thompson can appreciate why they would want to do it that way. <br /> <br />Staff Summary: <br /> <br />Mr. Johnstone stated that the Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 5, Series 2000, with ten <br />conditions as written in the Staff report and the additional condition from Public Works. <br /> <br />Applicant Summary: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed/Commission Comment/Vote: <br /> <br />Commissioner McAvinew is concerned that the colors are indefinite. <br /> <br />Lipton agrees that they should not leave the colors open-ended. They can approve it as it is presented <br />that these are the colors and if they want to change it before Council that is fine, the applicant can work <br />with them. If they want to change it after the PUD then they can come back and get a technical revision. <br />Lipton suggested having a condition that the final color selection must be approved by Council. <br /> <br />Lipton would like to see the elevation with additional windows. He thinks Condition No. 6 is broad <br />enough to work something out with the Staff. <br /> <br />Commissioner McAvinew proposed a motion that would to approve Resolution No. 5, Series 2000, with <br />the conditions as listed by Staff and adding two additional conditions. Condition No. 11, to read that all <br /> <br /> 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.