My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 11 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 11 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:37 PM
Creation date
8/25/2004 10:49:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/3/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 11 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Griffiths: <br /> <br />For explanation, when it came back <br />to you on 2nd reading, there would <br />be an emergency clause inserted in <br />it at your direction. <br /> <br />Davidson called for any further Council discussions. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />Roll call was taken. <br />being absent. <br /> <br />Motion passed by a 6 - 0 vote with Lathrop <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 1129, SERIES 1993 - VACATING A PORTION OF SOUTH 80TH <br />STREET BETWEEN DYER ROAD AND UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 36 WITHIN THE <br />CITY OF LOUISVILLE, COLORADO - 2NDREADING - PUBLIC HEARING (PUBL. <br />LSVL. TIMES 10/20/93) <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the public hearing had already previously been <br />opened in this meeting and was continued until Mr. Brisnehan had <br />arrived. <br /> <br />Bob Brisnehan, 1007 Corporation, P.O. Box 337, Louisville, <br />Colorado, stated that he was available to answer any questions. <br /> <br />Davidson called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak in <br />favor or against Ordinance No. 1129. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />Davidson closed the public hearing and called for Council comments. <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />Will not vacating that easement, but <br />still disposing of the street <br />itself, impose any danger to the <br />city comparable to what you <br />described earlier? <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated that removal of the existing <br />roadway could lead to some argument that the city had an intent to <br />abandon this right-of-way. If that roadway is going to be removed, <br />it should be accompanied by some clear expression by the city that <br />it is not the intent of the city by doing so to abandon the right- <br />of-way. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />If the city chooses not to vacate <br />this right-of-way, does anyone else <br />have standing to request the <br />vacation of the right-of-way? <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />No one else has the ability to <br />require the city to vacate this <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.