My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 11 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 11 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 3:02:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/3/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 11 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 />11/3/83 <br /> <br />Pa~e -4- <br /> <br />development, the City would allow them to <br />build so many units and then if they didn't <br />produce their allocation goes down to what- <br />ever council would decide. But if they <br />did produce the commercial and office re- <br />search then they should be given a percentage <br />increase of residential building permits. <br />Another concept of developing had been dis- <br />cussed i.e. when a piece of residential property <br />is developed, a like piece of commercial/ <br />office research must also be developed, which <br />included streets and other improvements. Felt <br />that Mr. Alshuler so far has demonstrated a <br />a great willingness to work out something <br />that seems to be equitable to both parties. <br />Didn't feel all these details could be worked <br />out this evening; therefore had scheduled the <br />two work sessions, with a possible third. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Commented that. all kinds of .scenarios had <br />been tossed around in various groups, but <br />wanted to make clear the reason council was <br />doing this is that they are trying to pro- <br />tect the fiscal integrity of the City; and <br />that trying hard and getting a reward for <br />trying hard is not within that context. So <br />it has to be an issue of delivering or <br />essentially impacting that fiscal situation. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Morris <br /> <br />Reiterated that she still felt uncomfortable <br />about putting the ordinance out of publication <br />and a public hearing set for December 6th, <br />as there were still major issues not resolved. <br />Felt that council needed as much public input <br />as possible. She had received some input from <br />people who have come to the Planning Commission <br />meetings and talking with her on the street. <br />People are telling her that what has been <br />presented so far is not acceptable for a lot <br />of different reasons, i.e. the location of <br />Parcel B, residential densities, our permit <br />numbers and tieing it to other uses. These <br />main issues needed to be somewhat formulated <br />so that when somebody asks what the public <br />hearing is about she will be able to give <br />them the basics. Didn't understand why <br />all this was being rushed - thought it needed <br />to be done cautiously, as the Homart Develop- <br />ment was one-third of our City. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.