My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011/04/27 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
2011/04/27 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 4:03:20 PM
Creation date
9/29/2020 5:17:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
4/27/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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).
View images
View plain text
April 27,2011 <br /> RESOLUTION—BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA <br /> Moved by Council Member Roberts,seconded by Council Member <br /> Moore to adopt Resolution No.8378 setting a public hearing before <br /> the City Council on June 1,2011,at 6:30 p.m.to receive comments <br /> on the City's intent to extend the term of the Business Improvement <br /> Area and special assessment levy for three additional years. <br /> Roll was called with all council members voting yes. <br /> Motion carded. <br /> COUNCIL BILL NO.1104-08 <br /> THIRD AND FINAL READING: <br /> AN ORDINANCE providing for the vacation of that portion of <br /> 11w Street lying west of Greed Avenue <br /> Moved by Council Member Moore,seconded by Council Member <br /> Gipson that this is declared to be the third and final reading of <br /> Council Bill No.1104-00 subject to the conditions as set forth in the <br /> ordinance. <br /> Council Member Nielsen voiced that by adopting this in the form <br /> presented,Including the changes suggested,the public interest isn't being <br /> protected in the degree it should. He talked about how street ends(a <br /> public fight of way)came about which served the public interest.Street <br /> ends were not intended for transportation or access.He asserted that the <br /> street end was to create a view corridor down 11°. He stated that the <br /> proposed 20 foot view corridor is not adequate.He then displayed photos <br /> that showed what a 20 foot view corridor would look like. He fudher <br /> asserted that the property in the future will change ownership. He <br /> recognized that there is a need for balancing interests including the <br /> public's.This amenity,view corridor,needs to be protected. <br /> 121 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.