Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />comfortable making a decision without that specific issue being addressed by the <br />applicant and County staff. Mr. Stewart and Dr. Day agreed with Mr. Emmons <br />and observed there was no Traffic Engineer present. Dr. Day did not want to <br />table this matter and suggested recommending the members' traffic concerns be <br />presented to the BCC for their consideration. <br />Attorney Barkett asked the PZC not to table the request and said if the <br />members wanted to have more testimony presented to the BCC, the applicant <br />would provide it. He stressed the project was on a very tight schedule, adding <br />everyone had been working on it for a long time and all of the traffic engineers <br />connected with the project were in agreement. <br />ON MOTION BY Mr. Emmons, SECONDED BY Mr. <br />Brognano, the members voted (5-1) to approve <br />staff's recommendation with a further condition to <br />have both the applicant's Traffic Engineer and the <br />IRC Public Works Director provide more detail to <br />the Board of County Commissioners to adequately <br />address concerns related to traffic pertaining to the <br />project. Chairman Zimmerman opposed. <br />Commissioners Matters <br />There were none. <br />Planning Matters <br />Mr. Boling announced a public hearing was scheduled for the next PZC <br />meeting so there would be a meeting held on September 25, 2014. <br />Attorney's Matters <br />There were none. <br />Adjournment <br />There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. <br />PZC/Approved <br />6 <br />A'T'TACHMENT 3 <br />September 11, 2014 <br />193 <br />