City Council Minutes 2007 04 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes April 17, 2007 Page 8 of 10 Louisville North Louisville Development, specifically the Wood and Lorenz properties. Planning Director Wood explained the General Development Plan of 1989 only identifies specific gl30graphical boundaries. Council member Muckle asked who would pay for the traffic signal at Highway 42 and Paschal. Planning Director Wood stated fifty percent would be paid by the City of Lafayette, and fifty percent by the City of Louisville, which would be recovered from the developers. Council member Muckle supported the annexation of the property, but not the zoning. He voiced his concern over the residential density of the development and his desire to see a buffer between Louisville and Lafayette. Council member Yarnell also supported a transfer of density and a buffer between the City of Lafayette and Louisville. Council member Clabots concurred and stated the ten residential units proposed for the commercial area would be isolated from the rest of the residential units. Council member Marsella voiced her support of the development and zoning. She noted the City desires commercial development on Highway 42. Council member Yarnell clarified her concern is the 280 residential unit proposal. Council member Muckle stated his desire for commercial along Highway 42, but he did not support low density on the west side and high density on the east side. Council member Clabots note!d there is a 12% dedication, and the easement might put the dedication below 12%. Mayor Sisk asked City AttornHY Light if the City chose not to annex the enclave properties, would the developer have the right to take the City to the Court, and would the City be subject to paying attorney fees. City Attorney Light stated the property owner could request the Courts intervene in the annexation process and the City could be liable for attorney fees. With respect to the zoning, he noted the Council has 90 days to zone the property. Council may deny the annexation or continue the matter. Council member Sackett expressed concern over the traffic on Highway 42. Planning Director Wood explained the scope of this development before the Council is the annexation of 3~2 acres. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for guidelines for the development of those properties. He explained at this time, there is no way for the Applicant to address the roadway development plan, or a phasing plan until the properties are assembled under the annexation process.