My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 03 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 03 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:45 PM
Creation date
1/30/2004 10:45:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/21/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 03 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
have a typical commercial feel, but rather a theme of transition. The infield has a mixed <br />commercial transition use so that the buildings and the landscaping work together. He <br />noted with that in mind and with the other constraints in terms of subsidence, they <br />decided the buildings should be smaller in scale, separated, and should have residential <br />character. He stated that they deliberately broke up the parking lots and separated the <br />parking by buildings as to permit landscaping and trees. He felt that the trees are major <br />elements separating the buildings and parking lots and that it would be a park-like setting <br />with low density. <br /> <br />With respect to the self-storage units, Mr. VanderVorste stated that there is very little <br />traffic or noise associated with such use. He stated that the buildings would be low, light, <br />and meet the functional needs of the community. He stated that this development would <br />address issues where traffic and noise are major concerns. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that he did not believe the proposal was ready or that self-storage units <br />were an appropriate use for the site. He stated that he was concerned the proposal did not <br />comply with the CDDSG. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that he believed Council would resist a proposal that included self-storage <br />units. He stated he would be disappointed to see self-storage units replace the charming <br />character of the existing shops. He voiced his concern over the issues raised by Staff on <br />open space, accesses, and drainage. He also was concerned that the CDDSG guidelines <br />would not be met. <br /> <br />Sisk stated he was not in favor of the project as proposed and that he too, was opposed to <br />self-storage units. <br /> <br />Howard stated he did not belief self-storage units were appropriate to the site. He <br />concurred with Councilman Mayer that the self-storage units would mean the loss of the <br />charm and appeal of existing shops. He was disappointed that the CDDSG guidelines <br />were not followed. <br /> <br />Levihn concurred with the comments of the members, the Mayor and City Council. <br /> <br />Davidson moved that the Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, Coal <br />Creek Station, Filing 4, at the southwest comer of Highway 42 and South Boulder Road <br />be forwarded to the Planning Commission with Council comments and recommendation <br />for denial, seconded by Howard. All in favor. <br /> <br />Sisk asked if the Council was obligated to send this plan to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the Council is obligated to refer this to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.