City Council Minutes 2001 10 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting October 2, 200l Page 10 purchase of this land is not the best use of open space funds. Brown stated that the City gains a wonderful park, and that the homes will fit in well with the surrounding neighborhood. Brown declared that he supports the proposal presented. Levihn asked Paul Wood the size of Meadow Park. City Administrator Simmons stated that it is approximately 3.5 acres and that this park would be approximately 2.7-acres. Levihn stated that he has and continues to support this proposal and that, should the citizens vote to purchase this land, Council will comply with the vote of the people. He stated that a lot of people were misled when they signed the petition. Levihn noted that the property is enclosed by surrounding residents, that it is not easily accessible, and that there is limited parking area. Levihn concluded stating that he was previously considered a questionable supporter of open space, but that he has voted in favor of every open space purchase. Levihn stated that this property would not be a good use of open space monies. Davidson stated that the eight days noted by Mr. Hine to approve the initiative to form did seem excessive to him, but that due to City Clerk Nancy Varra's absence this evening, he would be unable to obtain an explanation for the delay. Davidson asked Paul Wood if this PUD process was any faster or slower, by comparison, to a residential PUD. Wood replied that the Final PUD was submitted in July and has been on a normal track. Wood stated that because the basic outline of the annexation agreement had been agreed on, and because there were no continuances on the preliminary PUD, the process has moved on track. Davidson commented that his preference was to see this land used for a park, but that he lost that vote. The property has been annexed and zoned, compromises have been reached within the neighborhood, and based on the legal criteria outlined by Attorney Light, a further delay is not appropriate. Davidson stated that he had concerns about the height relief requested, but that his concerns were satisfied during Mr. Spare's presentation. Brown asked if there was comment by Staff regarding the alleged delay in the initiative process. Attorney Light stated that the initial referendum petitions had to do with the zoning relief, and there was a delay of a couple of months between the time Council took action and the time it was published. At that point, the 30-day window started during which, the petition must be put together and approved to form by the City Clerk. Light stated it was his recollection that the petitions were not submitted to the City Clerk for review until fifteen days into the petition period. After it was submitted, the full time given by statute was taken to review the original submittal, which took five days. The petition was given back to the proponents for revision because the original submission did not comply with the statutory criteria, and the re-submittal was turned around in one day. 10