My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2000 05 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2000-2009 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2000 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2000 05 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:01:58 PM
Creation date
10/1/2009 4:50:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
5/2/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
5A6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2000 05 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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
<br />Davidson asked Planning Director Wood what the current zoning is for the land located <br />to the north. <br /> <br />...~ <br /> <br />Wood stated that the land is unincorporated and he was not aware of the zoning. He noted <br />that the land is contiguous and under direction of the City Council, upon annexation and <br />zoning, provisions can be made for a variety of zonings, residential and commercial. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Wood about the potential trail system connecting to existing trails. <br /> <br />Wood responded that the Parks Department stated in a memo, dated February 4,2000, <br />that there is no intention under the master plan to tie into the ditch for any public use. <br /> <br />With regard to the parking, Davidson stated that he did not have a problem with adding <br />square feet to require parking. <br /> <br />DellaCava stated that they are not convinced that they have enough parking, and before <br />determining the size of the building, they will take the parking issues into consideration. <br />He also noted that if council wants a trail system later on, the developer would give the <br />City an easement and still preserve the obligation to maintain. <br /> <br />Howard asked if the applicant was addressing piping the ditch for economic reasons. <br /> <br />DellaCava stated that it was not for economic reasons and that the cost of piping would <br />be twice the cost of dedication. <br /> <br />Howard asked if there are any plans to develop the second phase, and if the piping of the <br />ditch could be accomplished in that second phase. <br /> <br />DellaCava stated that at this time they haven't any plans to begin development of Phase <br />II and that the piping is not justified in Phase II. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that Councilman Mayer had asked him to express his view based on the <br />information given that he would rather accept the cash-in-lieu alternative. <br /> <br />DellaCava stated that whichever alternative the Council chose would be acceptable to the <br />developers. <br /> <br />Sisk moved Council approve Resolution No. 19, Series 2000 - Final Subdivision Plat and <br />PUD Development Plan for Christopher Plaza II, and that cash-in-lieu of dedication be <br />accepted, seconded by Howard <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney asked for clarification on Condition No.4, as it currently states <br />that an access across Tract A would be required. Light felt that phrase should be omitted <br />if the city is requiring that access even if the City accepts cash-in-lieu of dedication. <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.