City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sisk opened the public hearing on Ordinance No. 1307, Series 1999 and called for the applicant presentation. NONE Sisk called for anyone wishing to speak on Ordinance No. 1307, Series 1999. NONE Sam Light, City Attorney, explained that the City must present certain documents to the State Land Use Commission and requested that the following items be included for the record: all materials included in the City Council packets, the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Comprehensive Plan, the Legislative declaration that is contained in the Colorado Land Use Act, House Bill 1041 and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, Chapter 1 and 4 of the Land Use Commission Model 1041 regulations, the proofs of publication and mailing for notice of tonight's hearing, and any other public records in the City Administration and Planning Department files that are related to the proposed 1041 designations contained in Ordinance No. 1307, Series 1999. Sisk closed the public hearing and called for Council comments and questions. Mayer questioned whether there would be any potential for either City liability or City maintenance under this Ordinance. Wood replied that there is no potential liability for maintenance. He explained that the applicant has submitted letters from Scott Cox indicating that the permitted uses would be supported based upon evidence of the mine closure statements, etc. Mayer asked Light whether there is potential for City liability. Sam Light, City Attorney, explained that nothing can prevent the City from being named in a lawsuit. However, he stated that these areas will not be public property, and will not be owned and maintained by the City. These areas were originally designated in 1976 as part of a general geologic hazard area designation for C.T.C. Since that original designation, subsequent studies show that these areas did have mine shafts and the applicant, pursuant to the Ordinance, has submitted some letters which are stamped by an engineer stating their opinion of what uses can be made. He explained that the City does have the evidence that is required by Ordinance to state that they are comfortable from a liability standpoint. He included a caveat that this be included as part of a motion. He stated that, at the applicant's request, the Ordinance at section 3 contains a proposed second reading amendment to say that these areas being designated could also be used for stormwater detention. He asked the applicant, Jon Lee, for clarification that this is on the assumption that these areas might be used for stormwater detention. He stated that the letter submitted by the engineer does not say that that is an appropriate use but it is certainly suggested by the City's 1041 Ordinances. He suggested that it would be appropriate to have the engineer provide a follow-up letter saying that stormwater