My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 11 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2013 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 11 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
11/15/2013 9:41:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2013 11 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 10, 2013 <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br /> None heard. <br /> Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br /> McCartney presented from a Power Point explaining this project involved two separate <br /> requests: <br /> 1. Request of a 3 year extension for the existing PUD; <br /> 2. Propose an optional site design, which would allow for phased development. <br /> McCartney added the project is located in the CTC area, zoned industrial, and has had <br /> a previous time extension. He added the new proposed development is an alternative <br /> option: <br /> • Single story, 30 feet tall <br /> • 83,291 SF <br /> • Could be built in two phases — northern most section would be built first. <br /> • Same access points, landscaping, and façade treatments <br /> • Staff recommends approval of the application <br /> Commission Questions of Staff. <br /> Moline asked staff what the sidewalk situatio <br /> Ar <br /> McCartney stated CTC has a sidewalk plan whic requires a single sidewalk on only <br /> one side of the road. The application corn lies with the existing layout. <br /> Brauneis inquired about the water usMb da . <br /> Lipton asked about the water usage data and asked if Public Works reviews the water <br /> supply for each development. <br /> McCartney stated Public Works does review all of the plans for potential water usage. <br /> —1161■7 <br /> Lipton asked if water usage increase requires an amendment to the PUD. <br /> Russ stated it would not require an amendment, it would require an upgrade to the <br /> water tap. <br /> Applicant Presentation: <br /> Wendell Picket, owner, stated he was in favor of staff's presentation and <br /> recommendation. <br /> Commission Questions of Applicant: <br /> None heard. <br /> Public Comment: <br /> None heard. <br /> Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br /> None heard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.