My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1998 09 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1990-1999 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1998 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1998 09 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:01:57 PM
Creation date
10/22/2009 10:12:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
9/15/1998
Original Hardcopy Storage
5A2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1998 09 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
Lathrop asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to providing use of the cemetery road as a <br />possible trail connection in the future. <br />David Smith, Davis Partnership Architects, replied that they have been discussing this with City staff <br />and would be agreeable to granting easements for that purpose in the future. <br />Mayer stated that if the parking spaces are deferred, he would request that the applicant provide <br />perimeter landscaping in that area. <br />Moore agreed. <br />Wood requested that a subdivision replat be approved before a building permit is issued. <br />Mayer asked the applicant what steps would be necessary to accomplish this. <br />Moore replied that they are waiting for. exact locations of utility easements and property Tines. She <br />asked Wood whether a letter committing to the replat would be adequate for Building Department <br />review. <br />Wood replied that since there is a different owner of MOB I, their approval would be necessary for <br />a replat. <br />Jim Brannan, Neenan Company, stated that MOB I and MOB II have the same owner. The <br />information they have to date from the financiers is that Lot 4 will probably be eliminated, removing <br />ary issues with the property lines. This removes any issues with the property lines. He felt that it <br />would be to their benefit if they co~zld defer anything other than a letter commitment for a replat and <br />consolidate all the activity to one timf;. <br />Wood stated that the property owner's signature is required on the subdivision plat application. He <br />has not received an indication fromi the: lender to that regard. He did not feel a letter would provide <br />the certainty that there is a process in place to resolve this issue. The existing plat indicates Lot 4, <br />and that runs through the northeast corner of MOB II. This prevents the City from issuing a building <br />permit until a replat takes place. H:e suggested filing an application to remove the property line on <br />Lot 4, which would allow a building permit to be issued. <br />Howard moved that Council approve Resolution No. 45, Series 1998 -Final PUD Development Plan <br />fora 70,000 sf Medical Office Building - Avista Adventist Hospital, 100 Health Park Drive, with <br />the following conditions: <br />1. The PUD elevation sheets shall be revised to reflect proposed signage for the <br />MOB. <br />2. The applicant shall file an application for minor subdivision replat prior to <br />issuance of a building permit for MOB II. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.