My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 07 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:36 PM
Creation date
8/19/2004 12:19:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
7/20/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 07 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Through the weekends, it's going to <br />be a closed business. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Paul (Wood), in terms of the 25', <br />how did the Planning Commission come <br />up with the 25'? <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />That's the AO standard. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that in all of Council's discussions the 50' setback <br />was to be included in 60% open space. He felt that there should be <br />a short meeting with the Planning Commission to really understand <br />what their concerns are, before this is finalized. He felt that it <br />should be kept in mind with this parcel that, if it came into the <br />city, it wouldn't have to be commercial. Residential RE would be <br />justifiable zoning for the parcel, which would require a 15% <br />dedication. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that several percentages were discussed, but the <br />Council settled on 60% and that was inclusive of the 50' buffer and <br />the 12% open space dedication. He recalled that they used a <br />100,000 s.f. theoretical parcel to amplify that. The height, he <br />felt, warranted further discussion. <br /> <br />Howard agreed with Lathrop. <br />heights. <br /> <br />He agreed to further discussion on <br /> <br />Durham: <br /> <br />Is 3' a problem, between 25' and <br />28'? That gives you the flexibility <br />of being about to build that <br />secondary structure above. <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />What I said is that if the Council <br />felt that further discussion is <br />necessary then, especially prior to <br />2nd reading, we should have that <br />discussion. <br /> <br />Durham clarified where the height issue came up on Planning <br />Commission last week. They went through the uses by right that <br />were allowed in the zoned district and felt that several of those <br />uses couldn't be accomplished in 18'. <br /> <br />Mayer was concerned about the 60% being a gross figure, because <br />this would be the only zoning figure that would be a gross figure. <br />If the Council wanted to go down to 50%, his feeling was to zone it <br />residential. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that this is a zoning that Mayer initiated for <br />those areas that are making a transition. He commented that <br />obviously, Council intended to do pitched roofs, because that's all <br />they ever talked about. He was thinking of 18' plus the pitched <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.