My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 05 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 05 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 4:25:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/18/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 05 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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 />5/18/83 <br /> <br />Page -16- <br /> <br />in the Comprehensive Plan. In going through <br />the files a letter was found from the County <br />Planning st.aff, dated maybe a year and a half <br />ago, which asked if the applicant - Mr. Biella <br />had submitted with- his request for annexation <br />a justification for additional commercial <br />zoning in the City. At that time he had not. <br />To her knowledge, he still has not. One <br />major fact that the Planning Commission and <br />Council is concerned about is we are over <br />supplied with commercially zoned land, and <br />Council must take this into consideration. <br />If, in fact, the City is over-zoned commercial, <br />then why is one applicant that is in a zone <br />that is - priority use to acquire for open <br />space - why would that one individual be <br />allowed special treatment. Couldn't also <br />adjacent property owners, with no reliance <br />on the comprehensive plan, expect that same <br />consideration. The comprehensive plan area <br />is completely incurred with the growth plans <br />of the City, and to start spot zoning and <br />change that plan on a piece by piece basis <br />is not wise city planning. Also, there is <br />presently a process for amending the comp <br />plan. A major point was made that the buffer <br />zone should be a priority with the City. <br />It is inherent of the obligations the City <br />has made with other agreements with the <br />Superior Interchange, etc. To her knowledge <br />no one on Planning Commission or on this <br />City Council suggested the gentleman review <br />the process of the comp plan to change that <br />1500' setback buffer zone. If it was your <br />intention to do that it seemed to her the <br />process was there for them to do it. Since <br />that was never mentioned, debated, or even <br />considered, she felt it inappropriate to <br />thereby annex land that would violate that <br />buffer zone. In conclusion she would really <br />hope that the City Attorney's findings and <br />the City Staff's findings for judging this <br />to be a premature annexation and inappropriate. <br />Also, the finding of fact from Council to- <br />night would give a Judge time to reconsider <br />it; because it appeared to her that their <br />action in January was one of the wisest <br />things they had done. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.