My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1998 08 18
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 08 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:01:57 PM
Creation date
10/22/2009 11:54:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
8/18/1998
Original Hardcopy Storage
5A2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1998 08 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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 expressed concern that a large building is being developed and the equivalent 27% <br />landscaping is not being met. He feels that a request to build a building and put the landscaping <br />in later is unacceptable. He asked for the applicant's comment that the size of the lot should be <br />increased to accommodate the landscaping requirement. <br /> <br />Feinberg replied that the landscaping is already in place on Lots 1 and 2. In order to meet setback <br />requirements and right-of-ways, etc., Lot 2 will have 50% landscaping coverage. <br /> <br />Sisk agreed with Davidson. He asked the applicant ifhe would object to a condition stating that <br />the landscaping requirements are applicable to all of the lots. <br /> <br />Feinberg replied that he would not object. <br /> <br />Davidson agreed with Sisk; however, he wanted a legally binding document to contain the <br />landscaping requirements, as PUD's are subject to change. <br /> <br />Feinberg replied that he would not not object to such a document. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Sam Light, City Attorney, what would be necessary to accomplish this. <br /> <br />Light suggested adding a condition to amend the Lot Coverage Table on the overall PUD to <br />accurately reflect the shift in landscaping. <br /> <br />Sisk suggested adding a condition to the resolution, which would be subject to recording, putting <br />p~ospective purchasers on notice as to the intent. <br /> <br />Mayer questioned why an amendment to the original overall PUD wasn't being presented along <br />with this replat request. <br /> <br />Wood replied that staff was attempting to amend the overall PUD with this resolution but agreed <br />that amending the overall PUD would probably be more appropriate. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed. He felt that amending the overall PUD would eliminate any confusion. <br /> <br />Keany moved that Council approve Resolution No. 37, Series 1998 - Final PUD Development <br />Plan and Final Replat Lot 3 (PUD), Lots 3 & 4 (Replat), Coal Creek Medical Campus, with the <br />following amendments: <br /> <br />1. That the applicant provide a letter of credit for all outstanding common <br />area improvements, per the approved phasing plan, prior to issuance of <br />building permits on Lot 3. <br />2 That the building identification signs are modified to be constructed on a <br />brick base, with that noted on the PUD detail. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.