City Council Minutes 2002 06 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 5 Davidson called for City Attorney introduction. City Attomey Sam Light read Ordinance No. 1377, Series 2002. Davidson called for Staff introduction. Planning Director Paul Wood reviewed Ordinance No. 1377, Series 2002, which proposes to provide for administrative process to extend the length of PUD development plans. He noted that the Municipal Code provides a 36-month timeline on Final Development Plans for Commercial and Industrial PUDs. Ordinance No. 1377 would allow a one-time additional 36-months. He noted that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and favored a one-year extension and requested that Staff survey nearby municipalities. The survey noted differences in the structure of zoning codes and PUD regulations of jurisdictions, therefore making it difficult to draw parallel for comparison. The general consensus of the Commission was concern with the length of the extension. It was their opinion that a total of six years would be a long period to grant approval of a PUD. The Commission recommended approval of Ordinance No. 1377, Series 2002, with a formal public notice and comment period. Wood stated that two versions of Ordinance No. 1377, Series 2002 were submitted to Council; one without the public comment period and the second incorporates a public notice and comment period. He noted that in 1999, Council approved 40 PUDs and only two have not been substantially completed. One is the Love Associates proposal at 841 Front Street, and the second is the American Variseal in The Park at CTC. Wood explained that the American Variseal PUD was voided by the approval of the Eldorado Springs project on the same property. Davidson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against Ordinance No. 1377, Series 2002. Nancy Love, 841 Front Street, Louisville, CO, representing herself and the Downtown Business Association, explained that her PUD expired on March 2, 2002. She requested that, in light of the Ordinance No. 1377 and the downtown-parking ordinance, her PUD be grand fathered in. COUNCIL COMMENT Davidson asked City Attorney Light if Love's expired PUDs would be exempt from the ordinance. Light stated that requests filed prior to their expiration date would be honored, regardless of the filing date. He suggested adding language that would specifically state "requests for extension filed prior to the effective date of this ordinance would not be subject to that provision," in that respect, a pending application would not be penalized. Sisk suggested that Council avoid conflicting ordinances and recommended that verbal requests made to the City Manager's office be honored as part of the ordinance, but still be subject to the administrative review provision. 5