Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5/18/83 Page -14- <br />neighboring communities. It is the one part <br />of the Comprehensive Development Plan that will <br />define Louisville, especially from the rest <br />of the frong range urban sprawl. Mr. Mayor <br />and member of the Council, you are being <br />called upon again tonight to state emphati- <br />cally that there will not be gas stations, <br />or fast food joints in your City's greenbelts. <br /> <br />PETER GAUSS, 1125 Main St. Wished to remind the Council that it ,has a <br />contract with the people to legislate laws <br />controlling the events in the City. But this <br />contract is not a blank check to legislate <br />any law, for the people retain a mechanism <br />to change the Council's action or lack of <br />action. This is the right to referendum and <br />petition. It is guaranteed by the State <br />Constitution. In 1982 the people determined <br />that this annexation was in error and required <br />Council to rescind its action or allow this <br />issue to be voted upon by the people. If <br />Council acts to agree with the petition, there <br />are no residual rights by anyone to an election. <br />The Council is required by the Constitution <br />to respond to the petitioner's request for <br />election, but to no one else's. <br /> <br />JAMES CEDERBERG, 301 Spruce St. Stated there are a number of reasons why he <br />believed that the proposed annexation - the <br />annexation which was proposed approximately <br />a year and a half ago was not a good idea <br />especially at the present time. It is a <br />violation of the existing comprehensive plan <br />and planning principles. It violates Louis- <br />ville's commitment to neighboring communities <br />and to itself to maintain a buffer zone along <br />Highway 36. Violates Louisville's plan, which <br />he felt was tremendous, to surround oursleves <br />with open space as a buffer zone. Was his <br />understanding that staff had recommended against <br />the annexation when it was originally proposed. <br />Also when the annexation request came up in <br />late 1981 and in January of 1982, the Centennial <br />Valley Mall seemed to be in the cards and was <br />the driving fonce behind this and other growth. <br />Commented this annexation was proposed as a <br />satellite to the Centennial Valley Mall. <br />Even then it was rejected by this council. <br />The short-coming and the reason he was here <br />now was because the Court decided that the <br />Council fell short on a technicality - did not <br />