City Council Minutes 1999 02 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As the Ordinance has been drafted as an emergency ordinance, it would be effective upon adoption and signing by the Mayor, if approved by three-fourths of the members of the City Council. The Ordinance is proposed to be repealed on May 17, 1999. Davidson opened the public hearing and called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak on Ordinance No. 1292, Series 1999. Maureen Ivy, 1016 Main Street, Louisville, urged Council to adopt the moratorium as it was originally written and include the development proposals that are already in the process. She did not believe that it made sense to act on the new proposals until the Floor Area Ratio, Design Guidelines, Framework Plan and Parking Plan are established. She explained that she is interested in the future of downtown because her home is in downtown Louisville. She stated that she and many other citizens of Louisville have expressed their dismay to City Council at the rate of growth of commercial and residential development. The explanation that is always given is that Council's predecessors set the development in Louisville and the current Council is unable to control that. She urged Council to take this opportunity to change that and set a policy that will. ensure historic preservation. Nancy Love, 841 Front Street, Louisville, stated that she is often told that her suggestion for a moratorium is what prompted Council to set one. She expressed support for a moratorium for a short period of time. She commended Council for the great strides they have made in making decisions regarding downtown Louisville. She stated that she is concerned that her building might be included in this moratorium and she has spent a great deal of money designing her building based upon current regulations. She stated that if her building were included, she would be willing to shoulder the financial burden to provide parking; however, she could not also afford to purchase development rights. She requested that Council pass the moratorium but exclude the proposals which are currently in the process. She questioned the need for an emergency ordinance. Arlin Lehman, 908 Main Street, Louisville, agreed with Nancy Love. He also questioned the need for an emergency ordinance in light of the fact that there are only two proposals currently in the process. He stated that if another application were submitted, it would take approximately three months for it to progress from a Preliminary PUD to a Final PUD, which would be after the moratorium's proposed expiration date. He explained that he understood the reason for the moratorium was to prevent an onslaught of developers coming into downtown Louisville; however, that hasn't happened. He stated that he is not a developer but a citizen of Louisville who has had a business in town for twenty-two years. He commented that Council previously considered downtown projects from Erik Hartronft and Cheri Ruskus, who are also not developers. Developers would not find downtown projects economically viable. He stated that the issue should not be between the residents and the business community, as he is a resident and part of the business community. He urged Council to exclude the proposals that are currently in the process, specifically his and Nancy Love' s, as they have worked with Council in good faith to adjust their projects to meet Council's requests.