My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 09 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1990-1999 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1997 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:01:56 PM
Creation date
12/4/2009 9:58:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
9/16/1997
Original Hardcopy Storage
5A1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1997 09 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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
specifically approved through the Final PUD process. There are several mechanical units on the south <br />building elevation. Those should be screened with a stone wing wall extension or additional <br />landscape screening. Bike racks should also be added to the PUD for Lot 1. Future locations would <br />be reviewed as part of the individual Final PUD process. Condition No. 9 should read that the PUD <br />note designate the two future sidewalk from the north and south parking areas to the <br />88th Street right -of -way, to be installed if and at the time a public sidewalk is installed along 88th <br />Street: <br />Davidson recalled that the agreement reached with the School District concerning condition No. 3 <br />was "The access movements shown on the PUD may be subject to change at the sole discretion of <br />the City and eliminating all the other language." He stated 'that the Council's intent is not to change <br />it unless for some reason the local high school kids start to use that residential street. <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br />William Feinberg, 303 17th Avenue, Suite 920, Denver, Colorado 80203, reviewed the conditions <br />of Resolution No. 32: <br />No. 1 they felt rock instead of bark would be safer in the wind and the schools are using a <br />Blue Grass blend. <br />No. 2 they would be willing to work with staff on. <br />No. 3 they did not like the wording after the last comma, "...the property owner(s) shall... <br />They asked that the wording be modified allowing the City to make changes based upon their <br />standard language, but at the City's cost as opposed to the property owner's cost. <br />No. 4 most of that is up to the School District as they have done a pedestrian plan and it is <br />discussed somewhat in the IGA. <br />No. 5, 6, 7, and 8 they had no problems with. They proposed putting the bike rack in a <br />common area to be used by everyone, rather than one to be used specifically for Lot 1. <br />No. 8 wanted this changed to "if the City built a sidewalk along 88th Street in the future, <br />they would extend their sidewalk up to their property line connecting to the City's." <br />Rob Laten, landscape architect, Design Concepts, Boulder, Colorado, stated that they are also the <br />landscape architects for the School District on the K -12 site for both school buildings. He reviewed <br />the landscaping, including the advantages of using a Blue Grass mixture. <br />Davidson called for Council questions. <br />Mayer preferred the fescue grass. He felt the wood mulch would be more attractive. <br />Keany supported the 175 watt bulbs. <br />Howard did not support the 175 watt bulbs, as he felt more lighting was needed for security. He <br />preferred rocks to mulch in the landscaping. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.