Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />November 8, 2000 <br />Page 7. <br /> <br />Howard asked City Attorney Light about the submitted Sketch Plan and if it was a <br />reasonable representation of the proposal. Light stated that the Sketch Plan in the <br />original application packet is a conceptual document plan. Light noted that the Planning <br />Commission did not make a formal ruling on that Sketch Plan and it is not part of the <br />annexation and zoning procedure. Light stated that the document is typical of the PUD <br />process and gives some indication of how the zoning might be laid out. Light stressed <br />that the Sketch Plan is not a formal document and that a more detailed plan will come at <br />the PUD process. <br /> <br />Howard voiced his concern about approving the new proposal without it being reviewed <br />by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Levihn stated that he was uncomfortable with Council's decision at the last meeting. He <br />noted that upon first reviewing the proposal, Council remanded it to the Planning <br />Commission with favorable comments. The Planning Commission recommended <br />approval. He noted that on first reading there were favorable comments from Council, <br />however, at a later meeting opponents of the proposal presented Council a survey on <br />open space and Council considered a referendum vote on the annexation. Levihn asked <br />City Attorney Light if a special election is called and approved, would the City be <br />responsible for purchasing the open space land. <br /> <br />Light stated that it would depend on how the question is worded. He explained that <br />generally it would be an advisory question. Light noted that the acquisition question is <br />not before the Council. The issue is on the annexation and the zoning of the property. <br /> <br />Levihn stated that he did not believe a referendum vote was necessary, and that he could <br />not support the Fischer property as an open space purchase. <br /> <br />Mayer pointed out with respect to the question of annexation, that the applicant can <br />require annexation of the property over the next year. Mayer noted that zoning should be <br />set by the zoning classification that best suits the likely use of the land and fits the City's <br />needs. He noted that the zoning codes were adopted in May of 1994, and replaced all <br />residential zoning classifications with the exception of RRR. The zoning code provided <br />for two new zoning classifications and replaced the zoning classification that better <br />matched lot size of the property. He stated that there was a reason why the old zoning <br />classifications were replaced. <br /> <br />Mayer noted that this is the first completely interior annexation request since the adoption <br />of the new zoning ordinance. He explained that the last annexation was the Barry Morris <br />property, which was almost an enclave, and the zoning was much lower in density than <br />the surrounding City property. He stated that the zoning was SFR and RRR and the <br /> <br /> <br />