My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1979 01 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1979 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1979 01 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:14 PM
Creation date
8/10/2009 11:30:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/16/1979
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1979 01 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />January 16, 1979 <br />Minutes - page 7 <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 623 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />CONTINUED <br /> <br />next door, we have a commercial business <br />zone next door, and we've got apartment uses <br />as well as single family right adjacent <br />to the property line. Now you might say <br />that the property can be developed for <br />residential purposes on 5 acre lots, well <br />we would submit that under the Louisville <br />regulations which would provide or require <br />subdivision of the subject property in order <br />to build on 5 acre lots, you would have to <br />connect to the City's water and sewer <br />utility services and when you begin to talk <br />about 5 acre minimum lot sizes and bringing <br />sewer and water utilities to this property <br />in order to serve that, you are getting <br />into some terribly exorbitant public costs <br />relative to serving this property and of <br />course the public that goes and eventually <br />ends up buying one of these 5 acre lots, <br />is going to have to pay the price. Five <br />acre lots are just inconsistent with the <br />urban development. I think Council must <br />be fully cognizant of that. <br />It has been said, and will probably be <br />said later on tonight that the property <br />owners annexed the land as A-Agricultural <br />and that they can't complain at such <br />zoning at this time, but we intend to show <br />you that the initial zoning was more to <br />the insistance or suggestion of the City <br />itself and it was more in the nature of a <br />temporary zoning category pending the <br />firming up of development plans. <br />We are going to have one of the owners, that <br />is going to testify as to what his under- <br />standing was and I believe you will agree <br />with him that while the property was zoned <br />agricultural the owners had to assign their <br />water rights, they had to dedicate property <br />and they also discussed the fact, with mem- <br />bers of staff and Council, that they had <br />some development plans and that no one at <br />any time indicated that that property if it <br />came into the City of Louisville was going <br />to have to remain as Agriculturally zoned <br />land or agriculturally used land. <br /> <br />There was an annexation agreement entered <br />into between the City and the owners at the <br />time of annexation. That annexation agree- <br />ment and Resolution #13, Series 1976, they <br />provide a special procedure where annexation <br />can take place where there aren't any im- <br />mediate plans for development. It basically <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.