My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1979 02 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1979 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1979 02 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:30:39 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 10:41:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
2/6/1979
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1979 02 06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
411 - page 5 <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 623 In order to tut soloing regulatimoa as i - <br /> 10UNLIC LINO applied to this particular patty, we <br /> CONTINUED have to look, at the uses that a tt: : <br /> made= the ATAgricultural seam' <br /> • Petdtted mow, by right. wider Ma gtr• <br /> #1-AgricultmrS1 or commercial crop MU!, <br /> animal <br /> #2-3ing a fastily dwellings on 3 acre lots. <br /> #3-Cemeteries. <br /> #4-lbrtuaries and funeral chapels, and that's <br /> it. <br /> Those are the uses that this 47 acre tract <br /> of land may be utilized for; and that's <br /> what the property owners can look to. <br /> Agricultural or commercial crop production, <br /> single family dwellings on 5 acre lots, <br /> cemeteries and mortuaries and funeral chapels. <br /> I think you have to agree with era that that <br /> is the most restrictive zone in the City of <br /> Louisville, and that it is a very restrictive <br /> use category especially when you consider, <br /> we are not talking about a county or a non <br /> incorporated area, we are talking about an <br /> urban area we are talking about the City <br /> of Louisville . We are talking about land <br /> inside the City of Louisville. We believe- <br /> that it is far too restrictive insofar as <br /> those enumerated uses and it is not rea- <br /> sonable and therefore must be changed. <br /> Consistent with this is the Colorado Mun- <br /> icipal Annexation Act. As you know, you <br /> .Rnex property in accordance with the state <br /> .atutes which provide for .'inexation to <br /> municipalities. In order fur an area to <br /> be eligible for annexation to the City of <br /> Louisville, there must be a showing and a <br /> finding by you that the area to be annexed <br /> is urban or will be urbanized in the near <br /> future", now that's a site right out of the <br /> annexation act. The statute also defines <br /> what urban development means and its de- <br /> fined as follows: the construction on land <br /> of improvements for residential, institutional <br /> commercial, industrial, transportation, pub- <br /> lic flood control and recreational and <br /> similar uses in contrast to use of the land <br /> for growing crops, truck gardening, grazing <br /> of farm animals or other agricultural pur- <br /> suits. The statute I am reading from is <br /> C.R.S. 31-12-103(13) . Now what that basic- <br /> ally is saying is you have to cont-ast <br /> urbanization as opposed to .agricu tural uses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.