Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />April 3, 2001 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENT <br /> <br />Sisk stated that, if the annexation is in substantial compliance, the issues of the access <br />should be discussed at future meetings. He asked City Attorney Light if the access <br />through an open space requires a public vote. Light stated that he would review the <br />ordinance which established the open space program, and also how this parcel was <br />dedicated to the City. <br /> <br />Davidson noted that this would have to be reviewed by both the Open Space Advisory <br />Board and the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Brown stated that there are concerns about this proposal. He stated that he would have <br />questions with respect to alternatives from a County perspective and what opportunities <br />are available to add to City open space. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayer moved that Council approve Resolution No. 24, Series 2001, <br />seconded by Keany. <br /> <br />Mayor Davidson noted that the public hearing is set for May 15, 2001 and the Open <br />Space Advisory Board may not have an opportunity to review this proposal. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light stated that there is a statutory requirement to have a public hearing <br />within that time-frame. Light noted that if there is a need for the Open Space Advisory <br />Board to review this matter, Council would not be able to pass the Resolution this <br />evening. <br /> <br />Sisk moved that Council table this matter until the May 15, 2001 meeting, to allow the <br />Open Space Advisory Board to review this request, seconded by Mayer <br /> <br />City Attorney Light reviewed the state statute on annexations, noting that the public <br />hearing must be set within 30 to 60 days after the resolution is approved. He noted that <br />Council can set a public hearing and then continue the public hearing on the merits of the <br />annexation. Council could also delay action of the Resolution of Substantial Compliance. <br />Light stated that according to the statute, in order for the Planning Commission to have <br />jurisdiction over the zoning question, Council must pass the Resolution of Substantial <br />Compliance. <br /> <br />Davidson recommended continuing action of Resolution No. 24, Series 2001, pending a <br />review by the Open Space Advisory Board and to clarify the question of whether this <br />would require a public vote. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Mr. Mehaffy if continuing this matter would present a problem for the <br />applicant. Mr. Mehaffy stated that it would be the applicant's preference to move forward <br />with the Resolution of Substantial Compliance. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />