Laserfiche WebLink
�r 1 Januar 16, WY _. , <br /> II! *Lout page 7 <br /> o121 ! W. 623 `+ <br /> P41 1C UMW <br /> - <br /> next door, we have • commercial.. W. " ii . <br /> sone next door, and we've bat ,. .- 10.4140. t+' <br /> as well al single lami3 - •. 4Wr <br /> r <br /> to the <br /> property r <br /> that the property can be deve . . for <br /> residential purposes on 5 acre •ts, well - <br /> we would submit that under the louiwilla <br /> regulations which would provide ar require <br /> subdivision of the subject property in order <br /> to build on 5 acre lots, yttu wovid have to <br /> connect to the City's water an 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 • <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 /> 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 />