My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 09 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1986 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:57 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 2:32:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
9/16/1986
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1986 09 16
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.
/
206
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
commitments that have already been made by the <br /> City. <br /> Mannushn <br /> explained that the proposal is to subdivide <br /> the 12 acre site (including S acres soquired by <br /> Kcatain in the fire station land twister). <br /> located near Owl Drive. West Mulberry Street and <br /> the recreation *enter site. Kodtaia is developing <br /> the parcel into 31 single featly units. <br /> Planning Commission approved this with are <br /> conditions 1) An all weather road. approved by <br /> Public Works, should be constructed on the rest <br /> aide of the subdivision to handle all construction <br /> traffic and to provide emergency access when the <br /> subdivision is completed. <br /> Caroline Boyt, of KcStainn Enterpriass, suggested an <br /> alternative to the construction route first <br /> proposed. The alternate route coming off Owl <br /> Drive from the north would be used for the entire <br /> development and would be a better route rather <br /> than building a longer and more convoluted path to <br /> the site for construction traffic. <br /> Naaushr explained that the existing zoning is Is. <br /> Anderson questioned the zoning with the 4500 s.f. <br /> lot sixes proposed. Manush stated that going back <br /> to the original plans and the development of the <br /> waster plan process. past Councils and Commissions <br /> allocated different densities to different pieces <br /> of the plan and this parcel was approved at <br /> approximately 4-41 single family units per acre. <br /> nundley stated that the last Council wanted to <br /> ensure that the five acres was developed at the <br /> *Approximate density of the surrounding <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Speaking to Anderson's concerns over the sorting <br /> and the actual densities. Manus)* stated that when <br /> the master planning was dosee that was the <br /> perceived trade-off. Planning Commission and <br /> Council approved the total number of units that <br /> could be built on the entire piece of ground. How <br /> those units now get allocated across that piece of <br /> ground are the perceived trade-offs as the land is <br /> being developed. <br /> Jane Monson, 4131 M. Aspen Ct.. spoke to Council <br /> regarding her concerns over construction traffic <br /> stating that they have been dealing with <br /> construction traffic in their neighborhood for a <br /> long tine. Designated routes don't always get <br /> used and asked that the barricade at the end of <br /> S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.