City Council Agenda and Packet 2000 12 05

Home Browse Search

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