Laserfiche WebLink
a• <br /> 5/18/83 Page -14- <br /> neighboring communities. It is the one part <br /> of the Comprehensive Development Plan that will <br /> define Louisville, especially from the rest <br /> of the frong range urban sprawl. Mr. Mayor <br /> and member of the Council, you are being <br /> called upon again tonight to state emphati- <br /> cally that there will not be gas stations, <br /> or fast food joints in your City's greenbelts. <br /> PETER GAUSS, 1125 Main St. Wished to remind the Council that it has a <br /> contract with the people to legislate laws <br /> controlling the events in the City. But this <br /> contract is not a blank check to legislate <br /> any law, for the people retain a mechanism <br /> to change the Council's action or lack of <br /> action. This is the right to referendum and <br /> petition. It is guaranteed by the State <br /> Constitution. In 1982 the people determined <br /> that this annexation was in error and required <br /> Council to rescind its action or allow this <br /> issue to be voted upon by the people. If <br /> Council acts to agree with the petition, there <br /> are no residual rights by anyone to an election. <br /> The Council is required by the Constitution <br /> to respond to the petitioner's request for <br /> election, but to no one else's. <br /> JAMES CEDERBERG, 301 Spruce St. Stated there are a number of reasons why he <br /> believed that the proposed annexation - the <br /> annexation which was proposed approximately <br /> a year and a half ago was not a good idea <br /> especially at the present time. It is a <br /> violation of the existing comprehensive plan <br /> and planning principles. It violates Louis- <br /> ville's commitment to neighboring communities <br /> and to itself to maintain a buffer zone along <br /> Highway 36. Violates Louisville's plan, which <br /> he felt was tremendous , to surround oursleves <br /> with open space as a buffer zone. Was his <br /> understanding that staff had recommended against <br /> the annexation when it was originally proposed. <br /> Also when the annexation request came up in <br /> late 1981 and in January of 1982, the Centennial <br /> Valley Mall seemed to be in the cards and was <br /> the driving force behind this and other growth. <br /> Commented this annexation was proposed as a <br /> latellite to the Centennial Valley Mall. <br /> Even then it was rejected by this council. <br /> The short-coming and the reason he was here <br /> now was because the Court decided that the <br /> Council fell short on a technicality - did not <br />