Laserfiche WebLink
<br />friend of theirs who saw a little notice in the newspaper. She felt this was handled very poorly. As <br />far as compensation is concerned, she felt they should not have to pay property taxes for the next 20 <br />years that this agreement is on, as that would be fair, or they would entertain thoughts of selling their <br />development rights. <br /> <br />Davidson clarified that concerning W -470 there was no W -470 agreement anymore. He stated that <br />Parcel NO.1 was the only parcel within the city limits of Louisville and the only parcel for which <br />Louisville had any authority. <br /> <br />Davidson closed the public hearing calling for Council comments or questions. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that when Council signs this agreement they become one of three parties that must <br />agree to any change in land use that exists today. He commented that they are restricting the <br />landowners future use of their land by then requiring three separate entities to approve any change. <br />He did not think that was fair and would not support the resolution. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that there was no right of zoning being taken away. The County was saying that they <br />are not going to up-zone the land. He felt the IGA was a reasonable effort on the City's part to say <br />they will have reasonable and orderly boundaries between cities without taking anyone's rights away. <br /> <br />Sisk was disturbed that the landowners did not have a chance to have a forum. He wanted to hear <br />from the landowners. He was willing to continue the public hearing for two weeks to allow Council <br />to hear the landowners concerns. He asked what items had been added to this replacement document. <br /> <br />Simmons stated that No.1, in the northwest - No. 12 (Callahan property), in the southeast - No. 11 <br />(Haight property), there are areas of influence that were not on the previous agreement. <br /> <br />Sisk asked who the partners were in Boulder County Land Venture. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that Boulder County Land Venture is a Limited Partnership with a large number <br />(approximately 20) of limited partners. <br /> <br />Howard was concerned that there had been no notification of this meeting. He agreed with Sisk. <br /> <br />Lathrop felt the missing element from this agreement was the issue of compensation for denying a <br />reasonable use of a person's land. <br /> <br />Mayer did not feel it was unreasonable for the cities to have some control over how surrounding <br />properties develop according to the best interest of its people. He felt that, if the City takes away <br />someone's right to the zoning of their land, there should be compensation. <br /> <br />Sisk moved that Council reopen the public hearing and continue it until July 2, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. <br />Seconded by Mayer. All in favor. <br /> <br />4 <br />