My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1992 09 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1990-1999 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1992 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1992 09 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:47:04 PM
Creation date
1/15/2010 2:03:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
9/1/1992
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1992 09 01
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.
/
295
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
4riffithat Right now the FW Ordinance requires <br /> all Residential soned districts to <br /> be under this PUD process, if they <br /> are 40 acres or more. I'm assuming <br /> that what you Mould like to do is to <br /> reduca that 40 acres or more dawn to <br /> a smaller number. <br /> Mayers It might have to be done both in <br /> terms of land or density. I'll rely <br /> on you to determine that. <br /> Gritfithes I understand the policy that you're <br /> trying to address. If Council would <br /> like to have a draft prepared along <br /> those lines, I'll look at the <br /> Statutes and Ordinances and discuss <br /> it further with Councilman xayer and <br /> cote back with an ordinance that <br /> would reflect those concerns. <br /> Davidsont is the intent of this to apply to <br /> areas currently annexed to the City, <br /> but don't have an approve plat.? <br /> KaYOrt It would apply to anything that <br /> hadn't been formally platted. <br /> Davidson called for Council comments or questions. <br /> Iathropt I's havipq difficulty justifying the <br /> coments wade by Councilman Mayer as <br /> tar as what the purpose and the end <br /> result would be in adopting such a <br /> change. I'm not sure of the intent <br /> hare. The blarden that you would <br /> transfer to a small or medium sited <br /> developer on a properly zoned parcel <br /> of land in Louisville is not <br /> warranted. We would just be addinq <br /> the expenses of the PUD filing, <br /> separate drawings, extra consultants <br /> to do work that really doesn't <br /> justify the need. To make someone <br /> go through a POD gyration, when it <br /> isn't warranted,. I have difficulty <br /> with. <br /> layers I disagree with Rob. In looking <br /> through the case law that Susan <br /> submitted to us, I found that those <br /> findings in the subdivision process <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.