City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Keany expressed support for the tower, however, he requested that the tower not be up-lit at night nor have any exterior light shining up onto it. He commended the applicant on the appearance of the building and the changes that have been made to the project. He stated that the applicant is very aware of where the road may end up, accepts that, and is willing to take that risk. He asked whether the applicant agrees to the conditions of approval. Schneider replied, yes. Sisk asked Light what jeopardy the City of Louisville would be in if the condition of approval requiring a 1041 process were deleted. Light asked for the intent of striking the condition. Sisk explained that the intention would be to allow the applicant to proceed without the 1041 process as a condition. Light explained that with respect to this project, the liability would be that the City could not revisit the issue once the first building permit has been obtained. He stated that he did not feel it would set any precedent for any other projects. However, he provided a caveat that Council would need to define some of the terms sooner than later, and come to an understanding of how that interchange becomes a 'proposed interchange' for purposes of triggering a 1041 process for any other developments that might be in that area. He explained that it this were going to be done as a matter of general application that it would be more appropriate to do that through an amendment to the 1041 Ordinance. Sisk asked Light whether the City could create a compliance with the 1041 regulations if, in fact, the City determined that this would be a 1041 issue, and still allow the applicant to proceed. He expressed concern for allowing the applicant to go forward and then find out that the City does require 1041 compliance from the applicant. He stated that the applicant might, by that time, have some vested property rights, which will then determine the location of the road. Light replied that staff has not yet focused on the right-of-way issue for this process. He explained that if right-of-way is necessary for a cut-through across the property, that it would have to be acquired by whatever means are available to the City if there were not a subdivision application process, which is typically the trigger point for a right-of-way dedication. He explained that even if the PUD is a trigger for a right-of-way application, the location has not been determined yet. He stated that a portion of condition one was intended to avoid the common law vested rights argument that once you pull a bill for building permit and start spending funds on it, you have a right to proceed with the development. He explained that this is the reason that the condition requires that a building permit would not be issued until the 1041 process was completed. That process requires an application, a public hearing before City Council between thirty and ninety days later, and a hearing by the Planning Commission. He stated that this would be another alternative. If the Ordinance, on its face, applies, the permit could be processed 20