My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2006 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:16 AM
Creation date
10/19/2006 3:15:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2006 02 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />FEBRUARY 9, 2006 <br />Page 8 of 14 <br /> <br />Members of the Public: None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: <br />No additional questions. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br />Loo stated that the IDDSG were in conflict with the need for maximum visibility on a relatively <br />unsecured property. She also feels that the applicant has not adequately addressed the security of <br />the site without the ability to access the property. She stated that she does not support the project. <br /> <br />Pritchard addressed the following concerns: does not support the individual ownership, no on site <br />control/management of the units, and the success or lack of success of an owners association in <br />properly managing the property. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that the CTC is an Industrial Park and this is not an appropriate project for CTC. <br />He expressed concern with the individual ownership and lack of on-site management. <br /> <br />Dalton stated that if someone is going to pay the suggested price for a unit then they are going to <br />be interested in the proper management of the property. He expressed concern with how to <br />control the illegal use of a unit. He also stated he is undecided about his support of the project <br />and wanted to hear the comments of the other Commissioners. <br /> <br />Sheets stated that she would need to have on-site management to support the project. <br /> <br />Hartman stated that she had agreed with the other Commissioners and their concerns regarding <br />on-site management and that this is not a project for the CTC. <br /> <br />Lipton asked the Commissions to think about how this would enhance the other properties in the <br />CTC. <br /> <br />Sheets asked them to consider what it would be like in ten years. <br /> <br />Dalton asked what other municipalities have that are similar projects. <br /> <br />Sheets stated that she is not in favor of the project. <br /> <br />Loo does not support project without on-site management. <br /> <br />Chris does not support the project based on his previous comments. <br /> <br />Lipton does not support the project because of the design elements, location and no on-site <br />management. <br /> <br />Lipton moved and Pritchard seconded a motion a deny the approval of the project and to direct <br />the staff to come back to the March 9 meeting with a resolution of denial. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton Yes <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Gail Hartman Yes <br />Susan Loo Yes <br />Michael Deborski excused <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.