Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mayer stated that $100,000 per lot would generate $6 million. <br /> <br />Davidson asked to clarify that open space dollars are not being used to purchase the right- <br />of-way. He explained that $1,527,650 would be coming from the Northwest Parkway to <br />purchase the right-of-way. He stated that this amount is already deducted in equal shares <br />from the County and the City, however, the County is currently up-fronting the money <br />and will be repaid by the Northwest Parkway. <br /> <br />Lathrop questioned whether sixty-five units of residential units in the northeast quarter of <br />the property is the best back up position versus perhaps a continuation of a business <br />office park in the northwest quarter of the same property. He explained that this would be <br />adjacent to 104th Street and adjacent to what will be an existing office park. He suggested <br />that this option also be available to prevent the City from being locked into only <br />residential units. <br /> <br />Davidson replied that the County is up-fronting the $5 million, not the City, therefore, the <br />City does not have to find a way to get that money back, the County does. The <br />Agreement is not specific, it simply states that the City will work in cooperation to find a <br />way to do so. He cited as an example a situation where the Northwest Parkway was built <br />but it was several years late. This would allow the County, if necessary, some way to <br />recover the $5 million. He explained that the County and the City could certainly agree to <br />anything else, as the Agreement does not specifically obligate the City to come up with <br />half the $5 million should the Northwest Parkway not happen. <br /> <br />Lathrop replied that the only way that the County could recover its position would be <br />through this residential development, which would have to be part of one municipality or <br />the other. <br /> <br />Davidson replied that it would have to be part of Louisville. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated, in that respect, he would prefer to include residential unit and business <br />office alternatives. <br /> <br />Light, replied that there is an existing limitation to that option that would require an <br />amendment to the Northwest Parkway Intergovernmental Agreement because of the <br />existing land use restrictions on the Trillium and Boulder County Land Venture parcels. <br />He explained that the Agreement, which was approved in February, there is a one-unit- <br />per-five-acre restriction on the properties, therefore, residential is the only current <br />permitted use of the properties. He stated that the City and County could carry forward a <br />proposed amendment to change the permitted land uses. This would require the consent <br />of the City of Louisville, the County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette. <br /> <br />Lathrop asked Light whether this would carry forward in a default position. <br /> <br /> <br />