My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 10 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 10 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
11/19/2009 1:13:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2009 10 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />OCTOBER 8, 2009 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />that show how much rate increase for water consumption would have to increase <br />before it had an impact on demand. <br />Mathes stated he was aware of some studies but did not have the information <br />with him. He offered to research and get the information to Lipton. <br />Lipton stated it was not necessary. <br />Loo stated she might be able to answer some of Lipton’s questions. She had <br />participated in a study in another Colorado community and they found it would <br />take a drastic increase in the rate for it to make a different in the demand. <br />Sheets stated the document was well written. She asked what water quality <br />testing was being done. <br />Mathes stated the testing is regulated by the State Water Department. <br />Sheets stated she would share her proof-reading comments with Mathes. <br />Mathes thanked her for the corrections. <br />Pritchard asked what impact the ConocoPhillips site might have on demand. <br />Mathes stated the City is studying what the demand might be but they have no <br />detailed demand projections as this time. <br />Loo and Russell stated they had no comments or questions. <br /> 2009 – 2010 Planning Commission Work Goals: <br /> <br /> <br /> Planning Department Work Goals – Summary and Status <br /> <br /> Subdivision Re-plat Review Criteria <br />Wood discussed the 2009 – 2010 Work Goals and reviewed the timeline <br />illustrating the different goals and how they are scheduled for completion during <br />the coming year. Wood highlighted the following goals: <br />th <br /> <br /> Parking Study – meeting for October 14 has been noticed and <br />published. <br /> <br /> Sign code amendments for the downtown area <br /> <br /> Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission will have <br />a recommendation to City Council for discussion at a future Council <br />meeting. <br /> <br /> The Bee ordinance amendments have been placed on hold for <br />additional review by staff and the city managers office. <br /> <br /> Medical Marijuana Ordinance will be revised and a recommendation <br />from the Public Safety Department to City Council is planned for <br />th <br />October 20. <br /> <br /> 2009 ICC technical codes – A draft ordinance has been written and will <br />be reviewed by the Building Safety Board of Appeals. The adoption by <br />th <br />City Council will either be by the end of the 4 quarter of 2009 or the <br />st <br />1 quarter of 2010. <br /> <br /> Planning Department, Louisville Fire Protection District and the <br />Department of Public Safety have initiated a Neighborhood Code <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.