My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1996 03 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1996 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1996 03 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:40 PM
Creation date
4/9/2004 2:02:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/5/1996
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1996 03 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />property, with the total being less than one acre. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to <br />mitigate wetlands in the development. <br /> <br />Sisk was concerned about the maintenance of the outlot and he wanted that to be a condition of any <br />approval. He wondered how many tenants there would be. <br /> <br />Goodham stated that there could be 30 tenants, as there is a great demand in the 10-40,000 s.f. range. <br /> <br />Lathrop did not have a problem with the extra 4' for the rooftop equipment. He wanted the <br />equipment and the roof screening painted a muted color that blended with the project and for that to <br />be included on the drawings. <br /> <br />Keany was concerned about the number of entrance signs. <br /> <br />Goodham stated that they created two major entries. <br /> <br />Davidson felt an 8' screening on an 18' building was out of proportion. <br /> <br />Lathrop preferred, as was in the drawings, the parapet wall, the 4' screen, and the mechanical unit not <br />to exceed 6' in height. <br /> <br />Sisk felt Council should stay with Planning Commission's recommendations or send this back to <br />Planning Commission for their input. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed with Sisk. <br /> <br />Howard did not like the 8' screening. He agreed with Lathrop's statement to stick with the drawings. <br /> <br />Davidson asked for the applicant's summary. <br /> <br />Goodham thanked Council for the opportunity to present this project. He felt it was a well planned, <br />quality project. <br /> <br />Lathrop moved that Council approve Resolution No. 20, Series 1996, Final Subdivision Replat and <br />PUD for Pacifica Centennial, with the 10 conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission with the <br />modification of condition No.5, from 22' to 24'. Seconded by Levihn. <br /> <br />Mayer offered a friendly amendment that in terms of the maintenance agreement for Lot 4 that should <br />be incorporated before final approval. <br /> <br />Lathrop and seconder Levihn accepted that. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).