My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 08 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 08 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 3:45:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
8/16/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 08 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />8/16/83 <br /> <br />Page -5- <br /> <br />Growth-related Issue <br />on November Ballot <br /> <br />a growth related item as opposed to this <br />specific annexation. It had been mentioned <br />to her that a growth related issue be placed <br />on the November ballot, but Colorado State <br />Statues state that it is not possible for <br />citizens to do that because of the time element <br />involved. It would have had to be submitted <br />last week for Council to consider it tonight <br />to have that issue placed on the ballot. <br />it would be a question of whether Councilmembers <br />themselves would do that. So that would be <br />something that her group of citizens that have <br />been calling her have expressed interest in. <br />Stated even Mayor Meier stated that you were <br />pleased with the number of people that had <br />spoken about that particular issue and that <br />you did want to see it go to the public. Felt <br />that statement should be considered as well. <br />Stated concerning subdivisions that were ap- <br />proved last week by Planning Commission, it <br />seems that the City in general does not have <br />an ability to say to say "no." It appears <br />that you are overextending yourselves and <br />it was her belief that the reason the permit <br />number is having to be changed is because in <br />June there was an issue of paying the bills. <br />Now the number has to be increased, was not <br />certain what Mr. Wurl had plannea, but from <br />hearsay from the last meeting - it is going to <br />be increased because of commitments to Pulte. <br />Felt that the City should take a serious look <br />at this item. Believed that Mr. Luce had men- <br />tioned at one of the Planning Commission meet- <br />ings, he had asked Mr. Rautenstraus where the <br />City's real responsibilities are once they have <br />approved subdivisions. She was not certain <br />if there was a clear statlemen~ given, that is <br />why her group was going aginst annexations <br />because they knew that they were o.k. as far <br />as controlling growth at the annexation level. <br />But now, felt that the City is running into <br />problems where they have o.k.'d all these <br />subdivisions; therefore problems are multiplying <br />concerning the permit numbers. Stated that <br />all the phone calls that she had received had <br />come from the older part of the City - older <br />generation concerning this. She has asked <br />these people to call Councilmembers and to <br />come to the Council meetings. For some reason <br />they are afraid to do that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.