My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 09 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 09 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:45 AM
Creation date
11/20/2009 8:37:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2009 09 10
Document Relationships
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2009 09 10 PLAN SET
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)\PLANNING COMMISSION\2000-2019 Planning Commission\2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 />Meeting Minutes <br />AUGUST 13, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />location of the signage. He explained the need for additional parking especially <br />during the training sessions. The parking count was based on the number of <br />seats /chairs illustrated on the plan and then calculating one parking space for <br />every three seats. He reviewed the waiver requests. <br />Lipton discussed with staff the status of the PUD, is it an amended PUD or a new <br />PUD. <br />McCartney stated it is a new PUD since the original building did not require the <br />standard prior approval before construction. The fire district is requesting federal <br />stimulus money which requires the public hearing /application approval process. <br />Lipton stated the northwest corner of the building needs additional interest <br />details. <br />McCartney stated the architect should address those concerns. <br />Loo requested an additional condition: The SRU is for the sole purpose of the <br />Fire District. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Kyle Callahan, 220 S. Jefferson stated he is the architect for the project. He <br />stated the Fire Districts Comprehensive Plan calls for the expansion and remodel <br />of the current site. There have been major equipment changes since 1971 which <br />also prompts the need for the remodel The I uilding is deficient in the following <br />areas which will be addressed dun n g the rem de.l. windows, HVAC, insulation <br />and reinforcement of w <br />Pritchardiske <br />Commission Quest <br />Pritchard asked <br />not the same height as the others. <br />Callahan stated the floortarng room above that area which prevents the <br />additional hei:aht. <br />trainings at the site. <br />Callahan stated the detail could be added. <br />rict had parking problems since they already have <br />Callahan stated there had not been parking problems. Also, they have not <br />received any complaints from the neighbors with the parking of their vehicles on <br />the street. <br />Lipton asked if the fire district planning is similar to the city planning, i.e. <br />comprehensive plan. Is there any future additions? <br />Fire Chief Tim Parker stated there are no plans for further expansion. The <br />remodel /expansion of this site matches the growth needs of the city, based on <br />future buildout of the region for the next 40 years. <br />Lipton stated his concern with the plainness of the northwest corner wall. He <br />asked if additional detail could be added. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.