Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />MARCH 9, 2006 <br />Page 3 of 16 <br /> <br />Public Notice Certification: <br />Johnstone stated that the hearing on the application was continued to this date; therefore no <br />additional notice was required. The agenda was posted on the City's web site and the four <br />required locations on March 3, 2006. <br /> <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Johnstone provided the following summary points: <br />. Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 9,2006 on the CTC <br />Storage final PUD and minor subdivision application. <br />. After deliberations on the application, the Commission recommended disapproval and <br />directed staff to prepare a resolution of recommending disapproval to be considered at the <br />March 9,2006 Commission hearing. <br />. The Commission does not need to reopen the public hearing in order to take action on the <br />revised resolution that has been prepared by staff. <br />. The revised resolution was based on the findings of the February 9, 2006 public hearing <br />and includes the following conditions: <br />1) The lack of on-site management is determined to be insufficient to ensure <br />compliance with all applicable land use and design requirements from the IDDSG <br />and Chapter 17.12 of the LMC. <br />2) The proposed site plan does not create sufficient view corridors to allow the <br />Department of Public Safety adequate visual access for ongoing property <br />monitoring and surveillance. <br />3) The applicant did not demonstrate that the management and ongoing monitoring <br />of the video surveillance of the sanitary dump station would be sufficient to <br />ensure no illicit dumping of materials would occur. <br />4) The applicant failed to demonstrate how the proposed land use would be in <br />accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which Plan recommends as a <br />diverse mix of employment based land uses and associated professional and retail <br />services to complement and support the employees of the CTC area. <br />5) The proposed architectural design of the building did not provide a sufficient level <br />of detailing to meet the requirements of Section 4.3.1 (Public Zones) of the <br />IDDSG. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff: None <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation:. <br />John King, Lonetree, CO stated he was present to answer any questions the Commission have <br />this evening. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Sheets asked if he had any modifications to present to the Commission. <br /> <br />King stated he did not have any modifications. <br /> <br />Lipton clarified with staff that the recommendation of denial could be reversed by City Council. <br /> <br />Johnstone stated that he was correct. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: None <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: None <br />