Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />July 3, 2001 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />reduce their ability to excavate the easement. He stated that the easement is not passable <br />by a vehicle and would be a costly project to make passable. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that if the applicant is asking the City to substitute the easement over the City <br />trail and be in conflict with the trail, it is a financial issue. <br /> <br />Mehaffy stated that the configuration of the land was substantially different when the <br />easement was granted and it is now physically impractical to use the easement. He stated <br />that the existing easement would provide a dangerous driveway. <br /> <br />Davidson commented that he is not aware of any driveway access over irrigated parkland <br />and that he was opposed to the idea. <br /> <br />Mehaffy stated that there are two outlots, with the old easement owned and maintained <br />by the Home Owners Association. He stated that either outlot is open to the public and <br />he did not see the difference. <br /> <br />Davidson amended his motion to continue the public hearing until July 17, 2001. Sisk <br />accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light asked Ray Schlott if he intended the document submitted to the City <br />Clerk be included in the record. Schlott stated that he did. <br /> <br />Light asked that the document be included in the record and asked Mr. Schlott to give a <br />copy to the applicant. <br /> <br />Keany asked for clarification of the motion. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the motion directs the City Attorney to draft a Resolution stating that <br />the Council finds the Annexation is not in compliance with the applicable sections of the <br />state statute and continues Resolution No. 30, Series 2001, Ordinance No. 1362 and <br />1363, Series 2001 to July 17, 2001. <br /> <br />Keany asked that the original Resolution be submitted in the next packet. <br /> <br />Mayer asked City Attorney Light's opinion on the legal ramification of denying <br />Resolution No. 30, Series 2001, and if the City could support a case that the statutory <br />requirements have not been met. <br /> <br />Light stated that he did not have an opinion yet, but will prepare an opinion along with a <br />draft resolution that is the opposite of Resolution No. 30. He stated that the Council in <br />their legislative discretion can deny the annexation and that there are a number of ways <br />to accomplish that. One way would be for the City to turn down the resolution, pass the <br />resolution and refuse to consider an annexation ordinance, or the annexation ordinance <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />