Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />July 3, 2001 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />is capable of being integrated with the City of Louisville." He asked if integration <br />includes street access. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light stated that it would include street access. He explained that the <br />annexation statute defines urban as developed or capable of being developed and <br />integrated with or capable of being integrated with. He stated that Sections lc. and Id. are <br />statutory presumption unless other findings are made. He explained that unless the area <br />is agricultural and the landowner would state they would continue to use the land for <br />agricultural purposes for five years and do not intend to use city facilities. <br /> <br />Davidson asked how the street access issue is addressed in Section lc. Light stated that <br />under the City's annexation policies, the access would have to comply with the City's <br />requirements, with respect to grade, site distances, and other development issues. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Planning Director Wood if there are other safe accesses available. Wood <br />stated that he was not aware of any other safe accesses. <br /> <br />Davidson voiced his belief that the land for annexation did not meet the criteria because <br />if did not have safe access. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />Sisk asked Mehaffy for the names of the property owners. Mehaffy stated that the <br />Maurer's are the owners of the property, <br /> <br />Sisk asked about the safety of the proposed driveway and how it would be enforced. <br /> <br />Mehaffy stated that this driveway would be safer than a traditional driveway because the <br />Lovrien's have a young son, are trail user's themselves and are conscious of the issues of <br />safety. He stated that the Louisville Open Space Advisory Board has reviewed this issue <br />and found that the access is not a safety issue. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he has visited the site and voiced concern that it creates a potentially <br />dangerous situation. <br /> <br />Mehaffy stated that if the City denies the annexation, the applicant would petition the <br />County for annexation and an access would be provided somewhere. He stated the <br />perspective of the applicant is that the best alternative is to have the City annex the <br />property and have control over the development. <br /> <br />Keany stated that with any annexation there is an open space dedication requirement and <br />asked Planning Director Wood for confirmation. Wood stated that when the property is <br />subdivided there would be a 15% open space dedication requirement. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />