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
.fi7.± i - -- <br /> Y. <br /> 411t11. !6; 1979 agi a <br /> • <br /> �vU.Za =AI <br /> delays decisions relative to streets, ex- <br /> . :;Y tension of water and sewer lima with the r . <br /> is or owners era too make .thsir <br /> d v.lo a at plans aced that la exactly what r <br /> happened in this au*, Thrre wadi. ** fasi a years aso when they <br /> development <br /> annexed property.end <br /> that seems to be <br /> consistent with Resolution #13 and consistent <br /> with the way the per was handled before <br /> the City Council and City Staff. <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 urbanisation. 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 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 /> W believe again that the question has to <br /> { the <br /> this property, and we believe thee of <br /> answer <br /> you have to conclude is no. <br /> Now. the next question is okay, if that is <br /> an unreasoneble limitation on the property <br /> what should be the appropriate zone. <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 verity 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 /> msrcial 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 /> 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.