Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton made a motion to approve the revised Resolution No. 35, Series 1999, with <br />the 13 conditions as provided by Staff. He added two conditions, No. 14, that the tower be <br />eliminated from the design, Condition No. 15, that the applicant must successfully negotiate the <br />cross-parking agreement with a neighboring property owner or owners. Seconded by Bill Boulet. <br /> <br />Substitute motion for Resolution No. 35, Series 1999, made by Patricia Thompson to not include <br />Condition No. 14. Seconded by Bill Boulet. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote for the Substitute Motion: <br />Sarah Klahn, No; Chris Pritchard, Yes; Patricia <br />Thompson, Yes; Jeff Lipton, No; Bill Boulet, No. Motion fails 2:3. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote for the Main Motion: <br />Sarah Klahn, Yes; Jeff Lipton, Yes; Chris Pritchard, No; <br />Patricia Thompson, No; Bill Boulet, Yes. Motion passes 3:2. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton asked Staff to point out to City Council that the 3:2 was a reflection of the <br />disagreement of whether they should have a tower or not, but not on the overall design of the <br />proposal. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />F.Resolution No. 36, Series 1999, Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, The Park at CTC, <br />Preliminary PUD Development Plan to construct 2 new office/warehouse <br />buildings including a 44,550 s.f. spec building on Lot 2 and 60,000 s.f. “build to <br />suit” on Lot 3. <br /> <br />Staff Public Notice Certification: <br /> <br />Ken Johnstone, Principal Planner, certified that public notice was published in the Daily Camera <br />on Saturday, July 24, and mailed to surrounding property owners on July 23, 1999, and posted in <br />City Hall. All Planning Commissioners verified that they were familiar with the site. <br /> <br />Staff Report and Facts and Issues: <br /> <br />Mr. Johnstone presented the details of this matter as stated in the staff report. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Lipton asked why Staff is recommending that there should be a Subdivision Replat. <br /> <br />Johnstone stated that there are a lot of easements, potential shared-parking agreements, drainage <br />easements or out lots, the potential that emergency access easements is going to be vacated on the <br />eastern property line. There are many reasons and the easier way to track all of the issues and the <br />only way to move a lot line is through a minor subdivision replat. The two reasons being, it <br /> <br /> 6 <br /> <br />