Laserfiche WebLink
is one that says this is the entire <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />We can certainly revise this. I <br />would say that there should be no <br />implication in this agreement or any <br />other agreement that the ordinances <br />of the City of Louisville do not <br />apply to any property, absent some <br />kind of agreement with the party. <br />That's not the case. <br /> <br />Sisk wanted to see some kind of language that includes applicable <br />ordinances. <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />We ought not to suggest that the <br />ordinances of the city are subject <br />to the agreement of any property <br />owner. We should only add a <br />sentence at the end that says the <br />owner recognizes that the property <br />is subject to all ordinances of the <br />City of Louisville. With respect to <br />sale of gasoline, one of the changes <br />in paragraph 24 was to take out the <br />words "full service automotive", so <br />that it would read "gasoline service <br />station." Then, your suggestion <br />would be to say the owner agrees <br />that gasoline service stations, any <br />gasoline dispensing (INAUDIBLE). <br /> <br />In terms of gasoline, I want to talk <br />in terms of petroleum. I don't want <br />to get into a diesel fuel or a <br />propane. <br /> <br />Davidson pointed out that Council had not made any decision on <br />that. It would have to be done as an amendment. <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />My concern is that we might be doing <br />this in the wrong order. If the <br />approval of the agreement is <br />important to the members of the <br />Council in terms of whether or not <br />they would vote on the annexation <br />ordinance itself, perhaps, we should <br />take the annexation agreement first <br />and get to the point where the <br />Council takes a vote on that. Then, <br />go to the approval of the ordinance <br />itself. I'm wondering if that would <br /> <br /> <br />