Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />November 20, 2001 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />City Manager Simmons stated that the City is negotiating with two property owners. One <br />property is a three-acre plot of land with a single-family residence. The second property <br />is one-acre parcel that has a metal working shop and is zoned commercial business. The <br />single-family residence is a non-conforming use. Simmons stated that conservation <br />easements have been presented to both property owners. One owner has requested <br />clarification on the conservation easement. The second property owner has met with the <br />City Attorney, and the City is awaiting a response. He stated that one property owner is <br />interested in the future uses of the property. <br /> <br />Keany asked how the evaluation of the conservation easement would be made. He asked <br />if the evaluation is made on the commercial use of the property. <br /> <br />Simmons stated that, at this point, the evaluation is being considered on a before and after <br />situation. <br /> <br />Sisk stated his understanding that through the Northwest Parkway Agreement, the City <br />agreed to pay the property owners for the down zoning of their property at fair market <br />value. He voiced concern over proceeding with the ordinance without resolution on the <br />conservation easements. He asked City Attorney Light about the legal ramifications of <br />proceeding with the ordinance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Sam Light stated that in regards to the challenge to the zoning, there are <br />three ways to establish the claim. The first is the physical endangerment of the property, <br />which is not the case. The second would be loss of all economic use of the property, <br />which is also not occurring. He explained that the existing use of the property would be <br />allowed to continue. The non-conforming use, under Colorado law, can be transferred <br />from one property owner to another. · If the property were sold, the buyer would have the <br />right to continue the use, but would also be subject to the City's ordinance. The last basis <br />that would take the claim would be the concept of interference with investment-backed <br />expectations. He stated that there are some factual circumstances suggesting that this <br />property was originally part of the Mizel Annexation and intended to be developed <br />toward a commercial use. This anticipated a ten-year development of the property, which <br />has not occurred. Light stated that under Colorado law, an owner does not have a vested <br />right to rezoning of their property, however, they are entitled to continue that use, subject <br />to non-conforming rules that apply. He noted that the Northwest Parkway Agreement is <br />a zoning action. He stated that public notice was published and specific notice provided <br />when the Agreement was considered. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the Northwest Parkway Agreement was approved two to three years <br />ago. The IGA required Broomfield and Louisville to take certain zoning actions within <br />one year. He stated that Boulder County has brought that requirement to the City's <br />attention. He stressed that the City is fulfilling its obligation. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Mundelein if he had made comments as the agent for one of the owners. <br />Mundelein stated that he was not making comments as an agent for the owners, but only <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />