My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 06 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 06 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:23 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 11:52:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/18/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 06 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
6/18/84 Page -5- <br />accesses on the part of the land that the <br />City purchased from Boulder County for the <br />expansion of the reservoir. Unless Council <br />was willing to give up part of that land, <br />there would be only access - ingress and <br />egrress to the development. <br />Comp Plan Ar.~other major issue is how this would fit <br />into the comprehensive plan. Administrator <br />Wu~rl stated the comp plan is a "broad brush" <br />in the area and is difficult to define <br />whether this area is in or out of the <br />developable area. The bulk of the property <br />i~; clearly in the area set aside for open <br />space on the north slope of the hill. But <br />tY:~is is a question of interpretation. <br />Councilman Leary Commented it appeared to him, given our <br />cL~rrent annexation policy that the issue <br />at: hand is the compelling benefit to the City. <br />HEM assumed the letter was addressing what <br />Mr.~ Oschsner felt -. the compelling benefits <br />are. <br />'tuck Ochsner Mr-. Ochsner stated this was correct. Speak- <br />ing to the concerns regarding sewer lift stations, <br />basements or sewer connections they would <br />have to be involved in, he commented although <br />hE~ was not an engineer, they had looked at <br />this and there were a couple of ways this <br />could be resolved and of course these would <br />have to be discussed with staff. The lift- <br />st:ation was a likely one. The proposal would <br />limit the building sites to one area; thus <br />trying to protect everyone's view by stag- <br />ing or staggering the elevations <br />RE,garding the access problem, Mr. Ochsner <br />fE,lt that the limited number of homes pro- <br />posed would not pose this problem if Council <br />wE,re to consider the whole spectrum of the <br />project. <br />As far as the compelling benefits to the City <br />hE~ stated that since the City plans to ex- <br />p<~nd the Reservoir the developers would pur- <br />chase this ground and deed it back to the <br />City and he felt this would be very benefi- <br />cial. Also, they would not build in the <br />open space area. He felt it was an oppor- <br />tunity that could be worked out in an ideal <br />situation . <br />In reply to Councilman Leary's question if <br />he was familiar with the. City's. annexation <br />policy, Mr. Ochsner stated there were some- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.