Laserfiche WebLink
378 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br /> the retained construction funds for the Cross-Town Sanitary Sewer <br /> Interceptor Project be reduced to no less than five percent (5%), <br /> as set forth in the Staff Report. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmember Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> 4. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> Item 4a <br /> PUD-80-15-5D-2M, Application of Pleasant Village Associates for ~ <br /> Major Modification to an Approved PUD Development Plan for a Retail <br /> Commercial Complex to Consider a Three-Foot Height Increase for a <br /> Portion of the Building, Located at 6700 Santa Rita Road at th~ <br /> corner of Pimlico Drive <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:282) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated that she met with the developer, together <br /> with the City Attorney and representatives from the Planning <br /> Department, to discuss the height issue regarding of the project. ' <br /> She explained that because of the way the building was constructed, <br /> it did not appear possible to lower the rear of the building to <br /> 21.5 feet. An alternative that was considered was to screen the <br /> building through landscaping. She added that the applicant had <br /> presented a revised landscape plan with additional trees and that <br /> he has agreed to put trees in the yards of properties that abut the <br /> shopping center. She continued that she had spoken to the <br /> neighbors regarding this option, and the property owners have <br /> indicated that landscaping would not be a satisfactory solution. <br /> She concluded that from the staff's perspective, the City's option <br /> at this point would be to allow the building to remain and the <br /> landscaping improvements to be added. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Ms. Acosta to give a brief background of <br /> the situation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta explained that as perceived by the adjacent <br /> property owners, the building was not constructed in substantial <br /> compliance with the PUD. to the rear. The language of Measure <br /> "X", which approved the PUD, suggested that the building would be <br /> in substantial compliance with the conceptual plan on file then at <br /> City Hall. She mentioned that it was not unusual for architectural <br /> drawings and building plans to change from the conceptual plan and <br /> <br /> 7-23-90 <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> <br /> <br />