Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sisk moved on the basis of the applicant not being present that Council deny the letter of intent for <br />annexation and zoning. Seconded by Levihn. All in favor. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 20, SERIES 1996 - FINAL SUBDIVISION REPLAT AND PUD <br />DEVELOPMENT PLAN <br /> <br />Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that Koelbel and Company requests to replat five lots in the <br />Centennial Valley Business Park into four lots. This replat is dictated due to anticipated subsidence <br />problems located within proposed Lot 4 at the south end of the subdivision. It is undevelopable land <br />that would be used as a regional detention facility for Parcel G. Proposed Lot 1 is for a 89,000 s.f. <br />multi-tenant, research and development complex, consisting of two, one-story structures. Wall <br />signage will be constructed from the same material and finish as the exterior building walls and will <br />not be lighted. They will be lighted by direct lighting. Landscaped berms have been incorporated <br />closer to the back of the side walk to assist in screening the parking area between Centennial Parkway <br />and Building A. Planning Commission approved Resolution No.1 on February 13 with 10 conditions <br />of approval. The revised PUD reflected compliance with those 10 conditions of approval. The <br />applicant, in a March 1, 1996, letter had requested an amendment from the Commission condition <br />that limited the maximum height of roof top mechanical equipment to 22' above finished grade. The <br />applicant was requesting that the maximum height be 26' rather than 22'. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Tim Goodham, Pacific Holding Company, reviewed the project. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mayer was concerned about the car lights shining onto the adjoining property without substantial <br />screening. He wanted the area bermed or screened, or obtain an agreement with the surrounding <br />property owners that they have no problem with no screening. <br /> <br />Goodham stated that they had been working with the owners of Lots 2 and 3 and they have an option <br />to purchase Lot 3. The want to make an aesthetically pleasing transition between the properties. He <br />stated that the extra 4' requested for the rooftop mechanical would be for certain types of research <br />and development equipment. <br /> <br />Sisk wanted to know about the wetlands issue. <br /> <br />Jeff Sheets, Koelbel and Company, introduced Brad Walters from Martin and Martin, consulting <br />engineers. He stated a letter was issued a couple of weeks ago concerning the wetlands. <br /> <br />Wood stated that a site visit was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Planning <br />Department, and the applicant. It was determined that there are two pockets of wetlands on the <br /> <br />6 <br />