City Council Minutes 2001 03 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting March 20, 2001 Page 7 Brown voiced his concern over the use of the term open space. He stated that the particular use of the property has yet to be determined. Planning Director Wood stated that it is a fulfillment of the public open space dedication. He noted that it has not been defined as park land but will be deeded to the City. Brown asked City Attorney Light if the parcel is subject to the open space inventory. Light stated that the Annexation Agreement is not intended for that use. The use is a fulfillment of the open space commitment. He stated that if it were intended for the purpose of open space, it would be referred to the Open Space Advisory Board for further review and categorizing. Brown asked about the term in the Annexation Agreement "no more than two exits". He stated that through the PUD process if one exit is determined to be appropriate, the agreement has stated "no more than two exits." Wood stated that it would significantly alter the concept plan and that two exits were fundamentally agreed on as a means to redistribute traffic along two points. Wood stated his opinion that it would fundamentally shift the representations made by the applicant. Light stated that the language in 16.c of the agreement addresses that issue. He noted that it stipulates that "the specific locations, designs and specifications for but not the number of, both access points shall be subject to further review and approval through the PUD process." Keany voiced his concern over the open space being a buffer between two developments, and asked if there was any public benefit. He asked what position the Department of Parks & Recreation was taking. Wood stated that he could not address the position of the Department of Parks & Recreation. He stated that the distribution of the open space was intended to allow some buffering. The majority of open space would go on the west side, but some buffering would be along the east property line as well. Keany asked if Parks & Recreation would be involved in the PUD process. Wood replied yes. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayer commented that the assumption is that the PUD is being adopted if the annexation agreement is adopted. He voiced his concern about a private drive intersecting a bike path. He stated that the function of the PUD is to evaluate the issues. He stated that the Council evaluates what is in the best interest of all the residents, and not just those within a neighborhood. He stated that, in respect to safety, a full evaluation by Staff and the 7