PC 08/27/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Michelotti agreed with the abc:>ve commants_ She added tteat she i s pleased wi th the dense 1 andsc aF~ i ng , grid the architectc.ar al deli gn of the retail canter. She was somewhat concern ed about par-E: i ng _ As to Parcels f- and F ., she con ca_arrc=d with staff rec ommendat i. on_ She felt that r•aeg oti ati ons r eg ar-ding ahotel warn premat ure_ She stated she could support the project_ Commi s~~i Drier t-ior are st~3 tied that wi. th regard to the traffic i ra Parcel A he woa_el d prop osa that any conditions that addre=ss traffic sh oul d be al i mi nest ed and that a traffic study at the ea:pen se of the applicant be the determining f~ic for as to what Kapp ens tt'aare_ He scapp ortad havi ng a :~4Cr-SC> a night hotel ., bt_at did not feel tl-acre was a real nee essi ty i n tY>a Ci ty for meeting rooms or a con want i on canter _ He favor ad a condition that wool d 1 i mi -t ~.ase of Par-eel G' ~ riot i ng that i t would not be strip retai 1 _ 1-ie f e1 t some= gcai del i Hess were necessary _ Al 1 i r-> al 1 ~ Ha suppor-ted the prof ect_ Di scussi on ensued as -to uses of Parcel C:_ Chaff. rmarz Berger said she could support the project _ She wool d favor a condition saying they do not favor a strip of small operations _ She f e:l t that Far c_el A was riot a good 1 ocat= i ors i f a c oravent i on cer~tar- i s proposed ~ she f e'1 t that traffic a'1 so read ad to be studied _ SI->e 1 i Iced 'the corner conf i gur ati oi~ of F•ar cal B_ She commended the appearance of Parcel E as a big i mpr ov em ant _ She stressed shin does not want to sea a 1 ong strip of stores with a view of• -1 or~g walls_ Commi ssi on er Horan would add a condi t i an that pr op arty own ars col 1 ab yr ate wi th Da_ab i n/San Pamon Sarvi ce Di strict i. ri deal i r~q wi th the sl cadge i ssue ~ Val Vi sta r'esi dents to be i nc 1 ude~d _ A mvti on was made by Comrni ssi on er trli chel ott i ., sac onded by Commi ssi on er' Hovi ngh r-ec om mandi nq approval of the Neg at i ve Dec- 1 arat i on prepared for Cases PUD-Sb- 1 6-3M ., PUD-E3 r>- 1 b-5D ~ PUD-8~>-16--6D, F'UD-S~>-~16-7D inasmuch as project approval would riot haves significant adverse effects on the environ marat_ f20LL CALL VOTE AYE~i: Commi ssi on ers Horan ~ Hovi ngh ~ Mesh ern ~ Mi chel ott=i ., and C:ha:i r-man Barger NOES'e None ABSENT c Nona AE-.<STA:CNe IVone Resol uti or7 No_ F•C-9G-68 was entered and ad opt ad recommending approval cif the Negative Decl ar-ati on prepared for Cases PUD-8C>- 1 b- 3M , F'UD-SC>- 1 6-SD ., PUD-80- 1 6--6D ., and PUD -SC_>- 1 6-7D as mot i on end . MINUTES F'L_ANN I NV COMM I SS I UN Junes ~>7 ., 199C> Page 26