My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1999 11 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1999 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1999 11 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 3:17:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 1999 11 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton asked City Engineer, Craig Kitzman, to go over the points in his letter in order <br />for the Commission to better understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Kitzman indicated that the first point was straight forward, just to get a correct vicinity map. <br /> <br />The second one is to give priority to the pedestrians on the sidewalk system. The engineer has agreed <br />to do that. <br /> <br />The infrared treatment would provide a structural integrity to the pavement and looks good. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pritchard asked why the retention wall with the treated timbers was not pointed out <br />that it is not acceptable wall material based upon the Industrial Guidelines. Ken Johnstone stated that <br />he tried not to rely too much in terms of on a basis for modifications on the Industrial Guidelines since <br />they have not been to the Commission for a public hearing. The intent of that is for a more natural <br />treatment and durability. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br /> <br />Bob Maddox with CMC Group out of Denver, Colorado, representing Airborne Express. Mr. <br />Maddox acknowledged the fact that the concern mainly with the Airborne Express building is the roll- <br />up doors and truck traffic. The building is an office/warehouse facility and the colors are what the <br />tenant likes to require. Airborne Express is willing to work on the monument signs. The roll-up doors <br />and the view from the street have been worked on with Staff to accomplish what is aesthetically <br />required. The issues in regard to the sign he will take direction from the Commission and work with <br />them to make it acceptable to them. Mr. Maddox also stated that their lighting wall pack is not a <br />typical wall pack that shoots light down or shoots light out. It is set off from the wall and has a 9-inch <br />layout that works somewhat as a pole. They are willing to work with the Staff. Mr. Maddox has no <br />concerns with the remaining conditions. <br /> <br />Members of Public: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Commissioner Boulet asked if this was in any way a retail facility or if it is only for company <br />personnel. Mr. Maddox stated that people in the CTC may drop some packages off but it would not <br />be a heavy retail office. It is mainly corporate accounts. <br /> <br />Boulet asked what materials the building will be made out of. <br /> <br />Maddox stated it will be integrally colored, tilt-up concrete. <br /> <br /> 7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.