My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 09 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1986 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 09 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:57 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 2:30:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
9/2/1986
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1986 09 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
revenue sharing, however, it would need to be a <br /> very limited revenue sharing agreement based upon <br /> the actual provision of services with Louisville <br /> providing sewer, possibly water and in essence, <br /> the interchange. Sundley stated that Louisville <br /> recognises the impacts and indicated a willing- <br /> ness to consider this and a 5% figure was thrown <br /> out for discussion. Superior indicated that this <br /> was not worth discussing. Mo further proposal was <br /> brought back. <br /> Sackett wanted it stressed that although a revenue <br /> sharing agreement was not worked out at this tine, <br /> annexation of this property does not limit this <br /> type of agreements in the future. <br /> sautenstraus clarified that in order to have any <br /> of the multi-family residential development, which <br /> is the only kind allowed in ■ CD sone by special <br /> review, it would coma before the Planning Commis- <br /> sion for • public bearing and would also have to <br /> come before the City Council for a public bearing. <br /> Anderson stated that he sympathizes with the <br /> concerns of those residents of Superior concerning <br /> this property. Anderson is in favor of the <br /> annexation and sees it as an opportunity for <br /> Louisville as it was for others in the past to <br /> take advantage of and Anderson feels it is in <br /> Looisville's best interest to deal with it in a <br /> positive manner understanding the concerns of <br /> those around Louisville. Anderson feels that <br /> during the PUD process, Louisville will be able to <br /> mitigate the concerns about the problems between <br /> the communities care people say be feeling. <br /> Mohr asked Mr. McSlroy what the designation of <br /> this property was in Superior's Comp Plan. <br /> MoSlroy indicated that it was open/agricultural. <br /> Mohr stated that this Council has the <br /> responsibility to thas..people who elected the _.. <br /> Couacilneabers. It is Mohr's feeling that this <br /> annexation is in the best interest of the people <br /> of the City of Louisville and will continuo to be <br /> good neighbors to all surrounding cosaunitiss as <br /> this City continues to prepare for the future and <br /> take care of its residents. <br /> Szymanski agreed with Mobr's atateaent in being <br /> responsible to Louisville's residents. Szymanski <br /> roognises concern about the buffering issue <br /> between cities and fools that there are <br /> appropriate ways to deal with that and remain <br /> good neighbors. alb. Comprehensive Plan, is only a <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.