Laserfiche WebLink
145 <br /> <br /> Mr. James Miller, 3633 Camelot Court, stated that he was not <br />opposed to the project but pointed out that the project had no <br />height specifications other than that it would be a two-story <br />building. He proposed that, to prevent what happened to his <br />neighborhood from happening elsewhere in the City, a height limit <br />be put on all developments that come before the Council, regardless <br />of location. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that most projects that come before the <br />Council have height limitations. He explained that this project <br />would be located at Hacienda Business Park, which has a height <br />limit of 65 feet, and offered to show Mr. Miller the project's <br />plans. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that the project is a PUD, which would give <br />the City complete control over all the aspects of the project. He <br />explained that a PUD has very specific restrictions and limitations <br />and that the building would have to follow a site plan as well as <br />an architectural and landscaping plan. He added that he felt the <br />project met the City's requirements for Hacienda Business Park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired what was meant by the "double check valves" <br />referred to in Condition No. 10. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that those were the valves where the pipes <br />go in and out and keep the automatic sprinkler water from <br />contaminating the public potable water supply. He explained that <br />installing them underground presents operational problems for the <br />Fire Department. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that he assumes that the traffic analysis <br />is valid and that there would not be an adverse effect on any of <br />the intersections in the area. He indicated that he would like to <br />raise the issue about adding a condition that if the property is <br />not developed within a specific time period, the applicant would <br />have to reapply for PUD approval. He explained that there should <br />be some control over the economic backlog of projects that are not <br />built, because they go into the City's traffic system and sewer <br />calculations and take up the City's resources, without giving <br />Council the ability either to review them at a later time or to <br />consider new projects. <br /> <br /> - 7 - <br /> 12-11-90 <br /> <br /> <br />