My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1994 02 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1990-1999 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1994 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1994 02 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/3/2025 10:24:37 AM
Creation date
9/3/2025 10:03:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/15/1994
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Quality Check
9/3/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
344
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
with resgqard to density, Aand dedication and design guidelines for <br /> Centennial II. This Property is included on the Centennial Kaster <br /> Plan originally approved in 1993 and amended in 1983 and 1990. � <br /> This is for the development. of 23 buildings, 137 attached sul,ti- <br /> family town hoses ranging in sire from ego s.f. to 1,300 s.f. with �- <br /> fo 40 six units /building. The parcel is 9.6 acres with a density <br /> of 13.3 units /acre. It is zoned R6. <br /> Susan Griffiths, City attorney, reviewed the January 28, 1991, <br /> saxorandus she sent to the Mayor, Council, Annetta Brand, and Paul <br /> Wocd ( 999 ATTACKED) . <br /> Sisk wondered why Council is going through this process, if the <br /> multiple dwelling permits that the City has outstanding under <br /> Ordinance NO. 36, if it won't be available for building until 1993 - <br /> and 1996? � <br /> Griffiths stated that it's a Resolution, not an Ordinance as of ss�� <br /> yet.. It's a policy, a guidance tool. She explained that it's <br /> schOdulsd for a Council Work Session on how that Resolution's goal* <br /> fits in with the application for specific building permits within <br /> the City and the potential claims of applicants to a right to <br /> building permits. <br /> Hovard didn't want the developer's rights to be infringed upon. He <br /> warmed the zoning laws adhered to and he liked the RE zoning. <br /> Kesny wondered, it there ware people in the audience who had just <br /> been appointed to the Planninq commission, would they have to NOT <br /> dig- qualify themselves from planning Commission discussions on this <br /> de% slopment . <br /> a Gri ffiths stated that they would not have to disqualify themselves, <br /> but. they should disclose on the record that they w ere present <br /> durinq some or a portion of the discussion. If anyone wish** at <br /> ths.t tins to object to their participation, they could do so. <br /> Davidson called for comments to pass on to the Planning ComsiEsion. <br /> Da%idson stated that the underlying zoning designates single- <br /> f aa�i ly . ��• <br /> Mayer moved that Council forward the preliminary Subdivision plat O— <br /> and FUD Development Flan to the Planning Commission with Council <br /> cosments. Seconded by Keany. All in favor with Lathrop being <br /> -� <br /> absent. <br /> DIECUSSION /36 TION - RKTIFICATIOK or BoUTH sun AREA ZI" UP <br /> PIJ.Ii <br /> Pati.l wood, Planning Director, stated that the Final Land Us* Policy <br /> Statement (SEE ATTACHED) represents the comments received at the <br /> � a <br /> { 1��,1}�1�.4.?•iM .t S ' 1 - '.: :♦ -. } .. 4 • t ?•,.. J M. •t'1 ♦ • �1...�ti - ' r <br /> '� � �� ��•� 5 ,.'� .. �4r���".� •..�y ?i'7 . Lit '• v� •�,`,�•3.,.'��� ti <br /> � % Q y � 1S ' � �� f ) 'y' •'�� `y "•,.M � _, •7� .t a t7 `�L �'� t,�, .JL ✓ G`� .� �l Jh2 r <br /> '- .tT'. Ins .!aT • +�'..� yl�r F v, -�wLt + ~ � �' �+l �F �` ' . -. ±C: it I:r . .� <br /> .r17R.l71• :i i •:'1a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.