Laserfiche WebLink
Jim Sheffield, 6777 Wadsworth, Arvada, Colorado, stated that, if the lot was bermed up in back so <br />there was not a walkout basement, there would be a real landscaping problem for the homeowners. <br />The neighbors did not want a two-story house on those lots and this would be a solution. He <br />reviewed the site plans. He explained that because of the slope of the ground, a walkout would be <br />the best solution. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council questions or a motion. <br /> <br />Mayer asked for and received an explanation of the building height. <br /> <br />Sisk moved that Council pass Resolution No. 48, Series 1995, which amends Resolution No. 73, <br />Series 1992, pertaining to Ridgeview Estates. Seconded by Mayer. All in favor with Levihn being <br />absent. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION - GATEWAY ANNEXATION - LOUISVIEW CORPORATION - <br />STATUS REPORT/ANNEXATION AGREEMENT <br /> <br />Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that on December 20, 1994, Council continued the public <br />hearing on the second reading of the Gateway Annexation, Louisview Corporation, to allow the <br />applicant time to take a revised concept plan (nine residential lots) back to Planning Commission for <br />review. The Commission reviewed the proposal February 22, 1995, and took the following actions: <br /> <br />1.) <br />2.) <br />3.) <br /> <br />Approved the annexation and zoning to AO-T and SF-R; <br />Denied a SRU for private horse stables; <br />Planning Commission specifically did not take any action to approve any form of a <br />preliminary development plan. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the applicant wanted to vest some portion of this development plan before it comes <br />back to Council. They revised the annexation agreement with some special provisions. Staffbelieved <br />that the extent of those provisions drop the entire concept plan into the annexation agreement. He <br />commented that staff did not support that process. They felt it should happen at a separate public <br />heating process. The applicant, through a letter to the City Administrator, requested a work session, <br />prior to second reading, to discuss the annexation agreement. The applicant wanted to know how <br />much of the essence of the project they could put into the agreement and still proceed through the <br />annexation process. Staff had initiated re-advertisement for a second reading public hearing before <br />Council on October 17, 1995. <br /> <br />Davidson asked if staff recommended that Council change their decision on this annexation. <br /> <br />Wood stated "no." <br /> <br />Davidson felt the Council was done then. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />