My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2012 10 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2012 10 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:20 AM
Creation date
1/31/2013 8:53:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2012 10 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />October 11, 2012 <br />Page 9 of 11 <br /> <br />Brauneis stated the lighting numbers are a little hot on the east side and he would <br />like to see them addressed. <br />Hobbs stated they would look into this. <br />Russell inquired if there was something unique about this project that the consulting <br />engineers brought. <br />Hobbs stated the building is trying to match the same high performance elements <br />Pearl Izumi brings to their clothing line, if that makes sense. <br />Tengler asked about the “experience center”. <br />Hobbs stated this is a new idea within the program and went into detail about the <br />experience center. <br />Moline asked for an explanation as to why the plat doesn’t need to be amended if the <br />building is being developed over 3 lots. <br />Robinson stated there is no need to replat because the property is owned by the <br />same company. <br />Public Comment <br />None heard. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staff and/or Applicant <br />Bill Mascarenaz, client’s representative for the project, stated this is a very efficient <br />building in terms of structural design. <br />Robinson stated staff recommends approval of the request. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion <br />O’Connell stated the project was exactly what the community needed and the <br />attention to detail was applauded. <br />Moline stated he echoed O’Connell’s comments. He appreciated the native <br />landscaping. <br />Tengler stated his support. <br />Russell agreed. <br />Brauneis stated this was the best project he has seen in the past 3 years. <br />Pritchard stated this was a huge step up architecturally for the CTC and the direction <br />the community should go. <br />Planning Commission – Action <br />Brauneis moved and O’Connell seconded a motion to approve the request. <br />Roll Call Vote <br /> <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff Lipton EX <br />Chris Pritchard Yes <br />Jeff Moline Yes <br />Ann O’Connell Yes <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.