City Council Minutes 2002 08 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 12 Wood clarified the property was incorporated as a result of Ordinance No. 1379, and is annexed to the City. Staff decided not to pursue the zoning of the property due to the ordinance requirement that all the property be under one ownership, thereby allowing the applicant to continue discussions with CDOT in determining the property disposition. Mayer asked if it would be appropriate for Council to de-annex the property in order to clear up many of the pending issues. Wood stated the property is still part of the overall upgrade plan and is intricate to the implementation of the overall grading plan. He noted the applicant might wish to look at the disposition of the property and have all their holdings annexed and platted. Mayer asked City Attorney Light if the City could annex land it doesn't own. Light stated that, except for purposes of annexation, public right-of-ways could be disregarded. He stated as long as the majority of the land is annexed, the annexation petition is valid. Davidson asked Wood for confirmation that Staff is requesting the zoning of the CDOT property be delayed. He stated his understanding the City was required to zone the property within a certain number of days from annexation. Wood responded yes, and confirmed that the property must be zoned within 90 days. Light noted that the ninety-day period has not begun yet and that is why the matter is coming back for reconsideration, so it can be finalized and recorded. Chuck Keim, Civil Engineer, Charles Keim & Associates, 1711 15th Street, Boulder, CO, stated that, the issue remaining in the City is the County limited impact permit. He explained that if the property were not in City, grading in the County would require an application for permit, and a hearing process. The other option would be to build a retaining wall. Davidson suggested an agricultural zoning for the property. Keim explained it is below minimum lot size for agriculture zoning. Mayer stated that, as CDOT has expressed an interest in developing the property, he did not want to create a situation where that becomes more likely. He suggested de-annexing the property. Keim explained the property's purpose is to realign the irrigation ditches for piping water over the highway to bring irrigation to the other side. He noted CDOT was not aware that they owned the property until the Drexel survey. He explained they conferred with CDOT and were told the property is surplus, and CDOT is neutral on annexations. 12