PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson noted a typographical error in Condition No. 32 on page 7 and requested that it be modified to read as follows: “A At no time shall balloons, pennants….” Commissioner Blank questioned the language in Condition No. 50 on page 9 regarding fire sprinklers, regarding the installation of automatic fire sprinkler system unless otherwise determined by the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshall. He would like the condition to be consistent with the current language: “An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the building.” Ms. Decker noted that staff provided the conditions of approval that were adopted at the time of the previous approval. She added some of the language as shown in the redlined changes to have them conform to current standards, and this particular condition appeared to have been overlooked. She indicated that staff would make that revision. Chairperson Fox noted that Condition No. 5 on page 1 states: “Unless waived by the Planning Director, this application shall be null and void unless PUD-81-25-9M is approved….” She inquired about the nature of this application. Ms. Decker noted that it was considered a minor modification and that actions on minor modifications are taken by the Zoning Administrator; the Planning Commission does not take action on them. Staff commonly times design review applications along with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) modification process. She noted that if the applicant continued to want the setback reduction, it was conditioned to be null and void unless the minor modification was approved and accepted by City Council when it considers the Actions of the Zoning Administrator. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the height of the tower and whether it met the height restrictions, Ms. Decker replied that it did meet the height restrictions. She added that the building represented the exact structure that was previously approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that the applicant’s building permits were close to expiring and that to date, due diligence in construction was deficient as required in the previous approvals. The purpose of the new entitlements was to ensure the investment in the costs of development fees and plan check fees, as well as ensuring the continuation of the plan check process under the existing Building Code would not be interrupted. She noted that there had been no changes since the Planning Commission last saw the package. Commissioner Blank moved to make the conditional use findings for PCUP-202 as listed in the staff report and to approve the application, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, and to approve PDR-692, subject to the conditions of approval listed Exhibit B of the staff report, with the proposed modifications to Conditions Nos. 29, 32, and 50. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, Narum, Olson, and Pearce. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 4 of 34