Laserfiche WebLink
the amendment to Ordinance #899 to read AB Zoning <br /> was approved unanimously. <br /> Mohr moved that Ordinance #899 be adopted as <br /> amended. Eauson seconded. By Moll Call Vote, <br /> Ordinance #899 was approved unanimously. <br /> MASS At 9145 p.a., mayor Foust* called a 10 minutes <br /> recess. <br /> C5DI$M * #900 - MRTZ REZONING REQIEST <br /> PUBLIC UARIRG Rautenstrays read by title only Ordinance #900, <br /> °An Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Louisville <br /> Municipal Code of the City of Louisville entitled <br /> •zoning• by rezoning a parcel of property located <br /> within the City of Louisville south of Pine Street <br /> adjacent to Saratoga Subdivision owned by K.B.t. <br /> Limited.• Proper publication and notice of public <br /> hearing were established. <br /> Mayor Pauson opened the public hearing. <br /> Manush outlined the requested stating that WB! <br /> Ltd. is the owner of a 2 acre parcel annexed in <br /> 1962 and currently sowed Az. The property is <br /> located south of Pint Street, west of the Corrigan <br /> Subdivision and north of the Saratoga I <br /> Subdivision. Withoutt a POD, through subdivision <br /> the maximum allowable units would be seven under <br /> the existing zoning. They have requested Boning <br /> of the property from AB to El. The maximum <br /> allowable number of units under the ML zoning <br /> would be 12. At the May 13th Planning Commission <br /> public hearing, staff had recommended approval <br /> with three conditions. However, Planning <br /> Commission denied the rezoning request. <br /> Jon Prouty representing this request spoke to <br /> Council stating that the parcel is extrea•ly <br /> difficult to develop due to size and access and <br /> asked that Council allow the AL request to allow <br /> it to be an •conoaical iy feasible development. <br /> Jim Back, 165 K. Elm, spoke stating that he and <br /> his neighbors adjacent to the property do not <br /> object to the development of this parcel but do <br /> object to asking for rezoning without disclosing <br /> any specifics as to how the parcel will be <br /> developed, i.e., access, character of the land, <br /> lot sine, type of dwellings, etc. Rack sees no <br /> compelling reason to rezone the property and feels <br /> this parcel should go through a POD process at its <br /> current sating. <br /> 11 <br />