Laserfiche WebLink
process for reasons other than this proposal and recommended that Council allow the <br />applicant to move forward. <br /> <br />Sisk agreed that the 1041 process is vague and should not be held over the applicant's <br />head. Sisk asked to clarify that he would be voting against this project, however, it was <br />due to reasons other than the 1041 process. He questioned whether Council would be any <br />closer to an answer in ninety days. <br /> <br />Wood stated that, in his opinion, two major areas would be affected within a mile from <br />the intersection, Downtown Louisville and the Business Center in the Park at CTC. He <br />agreed that there might be arguments for the benefit of the 1041 process with respect to <br />the Hwy 42 corridor. He stated that if Council determines, through the placement of <br />overlay requirements for Old Town Louisville, the Downtown Design Guidelines, the <br />general development plan for the business center and other controlling documents, that <br />there is no interest in carrying the 1041 process into the one-mile area, they have the <br />option to table this project and amend the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Light if granting a waiver would impact the City's ability to construct the <br />definitions rapidly so that they would apply to Downtown Louisville and the business <br />center, etc. <br /> <br />Light replied that it would not affect the City's ability to come up with definitions that are <br />more precise and appropriate. However, he explained that there is a risk. He stated that if <br />any development applications within the one-mile radius area are submitted in the <br />interim, the City may be required to abide by the position established for this applicant, <br />specifically that the highway was not 'proposed'. <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that, due to the moratorium on applications, he would like to request <br />that staff clarify the definitions before any further applications are accepted. He stated <br />that he agrees with Keany, however, he has some misgivings due to not knowing what <br />the implications are. <br /> <br />Sisk clarified that Keany's motion to reconsider deletes condition number one of <br />Resolution No. 49, Series 1999. <br /> <br />Keany replied, yes. <br /> <br />Light requested a voice vote on the reconsideration. <br /> <br />All in favor. <br /> <br />Keany moved that Council approve Resolution No. 49, Series 1999 - with the following <br />conditions: <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br /> <br />