City Council Agenda and Packet 1973 02 20

Home Browse Search

• + . . ..., Ile. Leo Merl Febrile* 46 1173 Pep Ph* This was a terse analysts of material and discussions with other county depart- ments because the Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing on February 8, 1973 to take action on this request. The major points which were revealed in this analysis were: 1. The aseexation of this proposed development would result probably In an adverse effect on the orderly efficient development of the City. It would taus' the City to be camm1tted to provide services for an area over one hundred (100) acres when the demand for new housing units will probably be far less. Perhaps a more appropriate means of bringing the proposed development into theCity would be by phase annexation over a period of years in accordance with the actual 'Nand for housing and the completion of needed capital improvements, ie: schools, sewer lines, and sewage treatma.i t plant. 2. The expansion of the City treatment plant and a new service line to limit ground water infiltration needs to be completed or near completion prior to a commitment to serve new growth areas. Once the first phase of the sewage treatment plant is completed, then the City would have the capacity to com- mit service to new areas. 3. The Louisville Eleeentary School would be 172 students over its design capacity when the proposed devilment is completed. At the present time, the Louisville Junior High School 1s over the design capacity. The school 's structure must be constructed to accoemodate growth. The question of whether school should be constructed just prior to expected growth or should be constructed in reaction to actual growth which h has taken place is a omen problem in school facility planning. However, the proposed development would put an undue hardship on the school if it developed within a period of several years. 4. The expansion of the City to a westerly direction seems to be a logical growth pattern. However, one question whether this is the appropriate time for a development of this magnitude has not been answered adequately. There seems to be several alternatives that we should recommend to the City of Louisville in lieu of granting the total development. 1. A denial of the request for annexation based on th . ....hool system being over capacity and inadequate sewage treatment would be one decision. 2. The City could approve a portion of perhaps 100 dwelling units of multi- family and single-family units which would provide approximately a three to eight-year supply of housing to meet the demand for housing in the City. 3. The financial implication of the proposed development on the fiscal posture of the City has not been addressed. The City could table the request until the City Staff had tine to prepare a financial analysis of the effect of the proposed development on the City of Louisville. Very tru)y ours YJP:JL.dmk xc: William Barstow Vincent rreca Planning Director