City Council Minutes 2000 08 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting August 15, 2000 Page 13. Sheri Levine, 1005 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO, stated that she owns the property at 641 Main Street,' which is located at the southwest comer of Pine and Main Street. She stated that she has owned this property since 1994 and received Council approval of a PUD in 1995. Levine noted that the PUD approval did not require any on-site or off-site parking and that the PUD did not have an expiration date. She stated that the cost to provide on- site or off-site parking, as provided by the ordinance, would be exorbitantly high and prohibit her from completing her project. She asked that she be grandfathered in, or that her property be exempt from the ordinance. Garrett McCarthy, 740 Front Street, Louisville, CO, asked that Council consider the parking fees carefully. He noted that businesses, such as his, have difficulties obtaining loans for building improvements, with the added cost of parking. He asked for a stipulation that the fee could be made in payments, or partially paid or paid in full after the project is completed. Eric Hartkroft, 801 Main Street, Louisville, CO, stated that some details of the parking project require additional work. He stated that everyone that has worked on the project is in favor of the ordinance, although they may not be in favor of the fees. He commented that Ms. Levine made a good point, and asked Council to consider those previously approved PUD's as exempt. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Mayer asked if Council had passed an ordinance that puts a time limit on commercial PUD's and voiced his concern that any PUD wOuld be granted into perpetuity. He felt that the vesting of property rights is a legal question and asked City Attorney Light to review this matter. Mayer also asked Light if the parking ordinance fee schedule is within the scope of power of the Planning Commission. City Attorney Light stated that according to the zoning statutes, assessing fees would probably not be within the scope of the Planning Commission's power. MOTION: Mayer moved that Council continue Ordinance No. 1342, Series 2000, to September 19, 2000, seconded by Keany. Davidson explained that Council is only requiring half of the parking criteria that would normally be required for the downtown area. Brown commented that one issue of concern for the Planning Commission was the City's calculation of the fee. He encouraged the downtown businesses to come forward with their comments so that the final calculations could be reviewed. 13