My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 10 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 10 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 2:01:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/1/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 10 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 /> -- . <br />r the general assembly and by voter approval then the <br /> Northwest Parkway is no longer in existence. The <br /> property would be free to be rezoned at that time. <br /> Prior to that date it would require approval by all of the <br /> signatories to the agreement. <br />Davidson: There are a couple of issues; one is the Northwest <br /> Parkway routing through there has not been finalized <br /> and if it doesn't follow Dillon Street that may not be a <br /> desirable parcel for open space, you might want the <br /> open space further south. I don't think we can even be <br /> assured that even if we build the parkway that particular <br /> piece of property would be designated for open space <br /> acquisition. When that was originally designated as <br /> open space it was assumed the route would be along <br /> Dillon Road, which I think is no more than a fifty-fifty <br /> question. Dillon Road has some significant problems <br /> when you take out houses. If we pass this on to the <br /> next step, at that point you would work out with the <br /> property owners an annexation which would meet the <br /> terms of the IGA? They would have to understand that <br /> until 1995 there would be very little the City could do as <br /> far as changing the use. <br />Franklin: Yes. <br />Fauson: Mrs. Neumann, since this has come to light would you <br /> want to wait until next Council meeting and discuss this <br /> with Mr. Neumannn before we proceed or would you <br /> like to go ahead and proceed? <br />Neumann: I would like to discuss it with my husband unless you all <br /> have a pretty good idea of what you want to do. <br />Sackett: I don't want to do this all over again at the next <br /> meeting. It is my idea to go ahead and pass it along <br /> and if you want to withdraw you can do that at any <br /> time. It seems to me that there is enough involved here <br /> that the Council may want to send it on for study <br /> through the normal process like we do all others. If you <br /> are thinking you need to have commercial zoning before <br /> 1995 in order to want to annex, then it would be <br /> appropriate for you to withdraw. Just because we move <br /> it along doesn't mean you have to follow the process. <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.