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 8 <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 623 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />CONTINUED <br /> <br />delays decisions relative to streets, ex- <br />tension of water and sewer lines until the <br />applicants or owners are ready to make their <br />development plans and that is exactly what <br />happened in this case. There was no imminent <br />development plans two years ago when they <br />annexed the property and that seems to be <br />consistent with Resolution #13 and consistent <br />with the way the manner was handled before <br />the City Council and City Staff. <br /> <br />In summary then, the A-Agricultural zoning <br />district, we believe, for a tract of land <br />located within a municipality which is in <br />the process of urbanization. Specifically <br />this tract of land cannot be reasonably <br />used for the enumerated purposes or the <br />uses allowed in the zoning code and a re- <br />fusal to rezone this property by this <br />Board for a more appropriate zoning class- <br />ification would amount to the confiscation <br />of this property, which is in violation of <br />the constitutional rights of the owners. <br />We believe again that the question has to <br />be that the owners make reasonable use of <br />this property, and we believe the answer <br />you have to conclude is no. <br /> <br />Now, the next question is okay, if that is <br />an unreasonable limitation on the property <br />what should be the appropriate zone. <br /> <br />This Board is the one that determines what <br />should be reasonable zoning in the City of <br />Louisville. <br />Now, there is a varity of uses that are <br />zoned that could apply to this property. <br />Certainly you could extend the industrial <br />north, it is right adjacent; or the com- <br />mercial business north and include the <br />Aquarius property, or you could take the <br />key from Lafayette and permit medium density <br />residential to include this property. Well <br />the property owners frankly aren't seeking <br />industrial zoning, commercial zoning, <br />apartment zoning, they're asking for low <br />density residential. <br /> <br />In a planning stand point I think you could <br />stay that this is the most appropriate use <br />of the property when you got that existing <br />land pattern of apartment and single family <br />units to the north and industrial and com- <br />mercial to the south. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.