My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2003 12 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2003 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2003 12 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:41:43 PM
Creation date
1/30/2004 9:37:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/16/2003
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2003 12 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 16, 2003 <br />Page 4 of 18 <br /> <br />Mayor Davidson requested that Staff report on all matters involving STK and called for <br />City Attorney introduction. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light read Ordinance No. 1434, Series 2003. <br /> <br />Mayor Davidson called for Staff presentation. <br /> <br />Planning Director Wood thanked Finance Director Laus for her assistance to the Planning <br />Department. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed that Resolution No. 54, Series 2003, concludes all statutory requirements <br />have been met, and the property is eligible for annexation under the laws of the State of <br />Colorado. The state statute requires a public hearing be held on the merits of the <br />annexation proposal. He reviewed Ordinance No 1434, Series 2003, if authorized, <br />approves the annexation of StorageTek. He reviewed the applicant and property owner is <br />StorageTek Corporation, who has submitted a petition to commence a voluntary <br />annexation of approximately 80 acres located adjacent to and west of So. 96th Street. <br />The annexation petition was submitted on June 17, 2003 and requests that concurrent <br />with annexation, the annexation parcel be zoned from Boulder Agriculture to City of <br />Louisville Planned Community Zoned District (PCZD). The proposed zoning of the <br />annexation parcel to PCZD and the General Development Plan are both pending before <br />the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Wood addressed the Annexation Standards and explained the decision to annex or not to <br />annex the property is at the Council's discretion. Chapter 16.32 of the Louisville <br />Municipal Code sets forth a number of annexation standards, which serve as a guide in <br />the processing of annexation petitions. Those standards as follows: 1) Comprehensive <br />Plan of the City of Louisville; 2) Police, Fire, Utility and Street costs; 3) Zoning of the <br />area; 4) Utility services; 5) Storm drainage; and 6) Transfer of water rights. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed a letter from the Boulder County Commissioners, which specifically <br />opposed the annexation of the 80-acre parcel, as well as the concept plan associated with <br />its proposed development. Their opposition was based upon the expressed concern the <br />proposal was not consistent with the terms and provisions of the Southeast Boulder <br />County, South 96th Street, Dillon Road, and US 287 Area Comprehensive Development <br />Plan. Section 4.17 of Exhibit A "If and when annexed to the City of Louisville, Louisville <br />shall use its best efforts in good faith to require an undeveloped buffer along the northern <br />side of said parcels. The parties agree that only Louisville can annex this property." <br /> <br />Wood addressed the annexation agreement and stated the standard annexation petition for <br />the City of Louisville does give the right to City Council to require a petitioner to enter <br />into an annexation agreement prior to annexation. The standard practice of the City is to <br />require the petitioner or owner to execute a annexation agreement prior to City Council <br />action on the annexation request. He stated there are two items still pending, which limits <br />the option of City Council: 1) the zoning is still before the Planning Commission, and <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.