My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1988 02 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1988 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1988 02 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:58 PM
Creation date
1/15/2010 11:08:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
2/2/1988
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1988 02 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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 /> lockers, au-csery stock production and sales, <br /> building aaatertal and equipment dealers and whole!,:. <br /> soling ssrvioes, passage parlors, coseercia'/ <br /> industrial uses. Also, Commission recommended that <br /> at the time of subdivision, an agreement should be <br /> entered into concerning right-of-way and improve- <br /> ments for Dyer Road, signalisation, water and sewer <br /> improvements, participation in the south Side Inter- <br /> captor, and possible pre-payment to cover raw water <br /> acquisition. <br /> At a Work Session, Council reviewed this pan <br /> regwated that Nde:4:14Q-41 design guidelines be add.' <br /> to the annexation agreement. The Dyer Road Dee an/' - <br /> Design Guidelines outlines use guidelines an4 <br /> guidelines. Also, the property shall be pianne#s-1. <br /> a4nder th# POD provisions of the Louisville **mid, <br /> , • <br /> Dennis Drum*, hO Development, applicant and owpR : <br /> stated that they (RI Development, are supportive <br /> and in concurrence with the criteria developed oos- <br /> cetninq the impacts to Louisville related to the useL <br /> sad aeethstios surrounding the development of this <br /> property. The agreement will not only be binding on <br /> Rd Development, but if in the future the land <br /> changes hand, the agreement will pertain and gc with <br /> the land. <br /> )tailor Pauson asked for comments in favor of or in <br /> opposition to this Ordinance. Non's. <br /> Saysanski stated that he was initially apprehensive <br /> about the conditions that the Planning commission <br /> placed on the the annexation of this property, <br /> s*ymanski wasn't certain that the conditions spoke <br /> to the issues surrounding the quality of developeeo; <br /> of this important piece of property. With the <br /> development of the Use and Design Guidelines, he <br /> feels more at ease with the annexation. $symanski <br /> otiii feels that it would be appropriate to <br /> establish another zoning category for just such <br /> types of developments. <br /> Mohr stated that the PUD process will clearly limit <br /> what type of development the City would like to see <br /> at that site. Mohr feels such more comfortable se a <br /> result of this. <br /> Anderson stated that he agrees with Szymanski, but <br /> still has some questions and concerns. Wanush <br /> addressed questions regarding signalisation, Dyer <br /> Red improvements, etc. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.