Laserfiche WebLink
240 <br />COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 13, 1992 <br />Council Member Elliott moved to adopt the first reading of <br />Ordinance No. 15 - 91 and dispense with the reading. Council <br />Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED HEARING, APOLLO DRIVE (THIS HAS BEEN <br />RESCHEDULED TO 6:45 P.M., MAY 26, 1992) <br />Mr. Schneider explained that the initial public hearing conducted <br />on March 23, 1992 was continued to get further input from both <br />the business and residential property owners in the area. There <br />has been a meeting with some of the business property owners and <br />also there was an informational meeting with the residential <br />property owners of the Marvy Street neighborhood. Many of the <br />concerns of the business and residential property owners can only <br />be addressed with more detailed plan information. Therefore, it <br />is recommended that the City Council order preparation of plans <br />for the project so that these questions can be addressed in <br />further detail. The plans should be developed by the new public <br />hearing date of May 26, 1992 to the extent that most of these <br />concerns can be adequately addressed. No Council action is <br />required this evening. <br />Mayor Reinert asked that Agenda Items 7F and 7G be considered at <br />this time. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. <br />92 - 55 Initiating Improvement Project, Apollo Drive. Council <br />Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Resolution No. 92 - 55 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 92 - 56 <br />Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications, Apollo Drive. <br />Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br />Resolution No. 92 - 56 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />Mr. Schneider explained that the adoption of these two (2) <br />resolutions only start the process and has no bearing on ordering <br />the improvement. <br />Mr. Schneider used the overhead projector and gave an overview of <br />the project. One (1) concern expressed by many of the landowners <br />is why Apollo Drive is being proposed as being so close to I35W? <br />It was their feeling that lots should be platted for both sides <br />of Apollo Drive to help pay the assessments. Mr. Schneider said <br />he did not disagree with this idea, however there is a problem is <br />trying to develop an alternative route. Any change in the route <br />would mean that the Correctional Facility fence would have to be <br />moved. He noted that the Correctional Facility is cooperative <br />but explained that it would cost $1,000.00 per foot to move the <br />PAGE 9 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />