My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1994 10 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1994 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1994 10 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:38 PM
Creation date
5/26/2004 10:37:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/4/1994
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1994 10 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Wood: <br /> <br />Not that I'm aware of. Unless I'm in conflict with <br />some other overriding principle of these agreements, <br />if they submitted this master concept plan, it would <br />not meet the criteria of existing PUD ordinances in <br />terms of being able to form a recommendation to <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Davidson wondered if the Council was required to grant temporary signs. <br /> <br />Wood stated that they were not required to do that. <br /> <br />Sisk wondered what the Comprehensive Plan showed this property to be. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the 1989 plan says residential. The 1983 plan designates this as unplatted <br />residential. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that this is then under Special Review Use. <br /> <br />Wood agreed. He commented that they would have used the McStain Master Plan since 1989 as the <br />basis for the single family approvals. They would have not made any exception for the Centennial <br />II parcel. <br /> <br />Mayer offered for public record, a petition signed by 134 residents with their concerns about McStain <br />dated December 30, 1993. He was concerned about the deadend street and large vehicles being able <br />to turn around. He felt, if units 55 - 63 and 81 - 87 were eliminated and the access were changed, <br />there would be a continuous flow through the development. <br /> <br />Griffiths stated that a number of letters were received and made part of the record at this meeting and <br />she asked that McStain also receive a copy of those. One letter was from Dennis Ferrera who had <br />been a member of City Council from 1982 - 1984 and 1988 - 1990. She gave Council a copy of a <br />letter from Assistant City Engineer Craig Duffin and asked that it be made a part of the record <br />conceming Schedule A, which was attached to Centennial IV, VI, VII, and VIII subdivisions. Under <br />Schedule A there is a reference to Centennial II, a storm drainage area, which the letter referred to. <br />She had asked Duffin if he could explain why Centennial II was referenced in a schedule which was <br />attached to Centennial IV, VI, VII, and VIII subdivision. She commented that Mr. Duffin stated in <br />his letter that for engineering purposes, the Schedule A reference to Centennial II was for location <br />only, not for property use. It was her understanding that it was Wood's view that the Centennial <br />conceptual Master Plan operates as the comprehensive plan for the affected area. <br /> <br />Wood agreed. <br /> <br />Griffiths asked if that was how the Planning Department had treated the conceptual Master Plan. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.