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
do us very little good. The only <br /> things the Subdivision Code deals <br /> with are a few civil engineering <br /> specifications that relates to the <br /> streets. It we're talking about <br /> parks and recreational facilities, <br /> those are spelled out in the PVD <br /> process in such greater detail. We <br /> could replicate those in the <br /> Subdivision ordinance. 3 thought <br /> that would be too contusing to have <br /> two parallel tracks of City Code <br /> that copied one another. We can <br /> talk and argue about what the lover <br /> levels should be in terns of not <br /> putting an onerous burden on the <br /> o"ller developer, but 40 acres is a <br /> very largo piece of ground. If <br /> you're talking about three or tour <br /> houses to the acre, which is the <br /> average, ou're talking about <br /> waiting until you get to 120.....160 <br /> houses before you're going to have <br /> sores significant regulation over the <br /> process. I would be concerned about <br /> that. <br /> Sisk: John, as far as the PUD subdivison <br /> question is concerned, in the last <br /> five years, how many new <br /> subdivisions have we had? <br /> John Franklin, Director of Coesunity Developxent, stated that they <br /> are currently reviewing the one, other than re- plats. <br /> Siskt As a planner, do you find sore <br /> specificity With a PUD than a <br /> subdivision? Does that assist us in <br /> asking decisions? <br /> Tranklins The purpose of the PUD is to provide <br /> Qualitative as well as quantitive <br /> information, to allow a negotiative <br /> process between the City and the <br /> developer. Whereas, the developor <br /> may exchange amenities for density, <br /> for instance. <br /> Siskt is it lair to say that the <br /> subdivision requests don't deal with <br /> qualitative aspects as such as <br /> Qualtative aspects, density? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.