My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 07 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1984 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 07 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:26:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
7/3/1984
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1984 07 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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
• <br /> 110 410 <br /> 6/18/84 Page -5- <br /> accesses on the part of the land that the <br /> City purchased from Boulder County for the <br /> expansion of the reservoir. Unless Council <br /> was willing to give up part of that land, <br /> there would be only access - ingress and <br /> egress to the development. <br /> Comp Plan Another aejor issue is how this would fit <br /> into the comprehenaivs plan. Administrator <br /> hurl stated the comp plan is a 'broad brush" <br /> in the area and is difficult to define <br /> whether this area is in or out of the <br /> developable area. The bulk of the property <br /> is clearly in the area set aside for open <br /> space on the north slops of the hill. But <br /> this is a question of interpretation. <br /> Councilman Leary Commented it appeared to him, given our <br /> current annexation policy that the issue <br /> at hand is the compelling benefit to the City. <br /> He assumed the letter was addressing what <br /> Mrs- Oachsner felt - the compelling benefits <br /> are. <br /> Chuck Ochsner Mr. Ochsner stated this was correct. Speak- <br /> ingto the cocraenss regarding sewer lift stations, <br /> basements or sewer connections they would <br /> have to be involved in, he commented although <br /> he was not an engineer, they had looked at <br /> this and there were a couple of ways this <br /> could be resolved and of course these would <br /> have to be discussed with staff. The lift- <br /> station was a likely one. The proposal would <br /> limit the building sites to one area; thus <br /> trying to protect everyone's view by stag- <br /> ing or staggering the elevations <br /> Regarding the access problem, Mr. Ochsner <br /> felt that the limited number of homes pro- <br /> posed would not pose this problem if Council <br /> were to consider the whole spectrum of the <br /> project. <br /> As far as the compelling benefits to the City <br /> he stated that since the City plans to ex- <br /> pand the Reservoir the developers would pur- <br /> chase this ground And deed it back to the <br /> City and he felt this would be very benefi- <br /> cial. Also, they would not build in the <br /> open space area. He felt it was an oppor- <br /> tunity that could be worked out in an ideal <br /> situation. <br /> In reply to Councilman Leary's question if <br /> he was familiar with the City's annexation <br /> policy, Mr. Ochsner stated there were some- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.