My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2004 03 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2004 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2004 03 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:41:44 PM
Creation date
7/26/2005 2:26:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/2/2004
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2004 03 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />March 2, 2004 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br />Council member Marsella asked if the two homes would share the same driveway. <br />Waldman responded no. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt asked City Attorney Light for clarification on the precedents <br />for amending the annexation agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light stated the Council does have the authority to amend an annexation <br />agreement and noted the annexation agreement for Centennial Valley has been amended <br />several times. He stated the provisions of the 1986 Faber Annexation Agreement permit <br />no more than two residential units, now or in the future. He reviewed the City Council's <br />options: 1) Pursue the existing agreement, 2) Review the restriction and direct Staff to <br />negotiate an amendment; have the amendment brought back to Council for final action <br />before any proceedings on the subdivision request, or 3) Direct Staff to deal with <br />potential amendment concurrently with the processing of the subdivision request. He <br />stated either is permissible, and suggested the City secure an annexation agreement <br />amendment first. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt stated the applicant is only requesting two residential units. <br />City Attorney Light explained the Annexation Agreement refers to the total 5.25- acre <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt asked if the property in question is located in the City of <br />Louisville. It was clarified the property is within the city limits of the City of Louisville. <br /> <br />Council Discussion: Council member Keany voiced his willingness to look at an <br />amendment, after the Planning Commission review and noted there is value in the <br />conservation easement. Council member Brown concurred with Council member <br />Keany's comments and voiced his support of an amendment to the Faber Agreement. <br />Council member Levihn concurred. Mayor Sisk voiced his belief there should be no <br />outbuildings permitted within the conservation easement. Having heard a consensus <br />from the City Council, Mayor Sisk directed Staff to initiate an amendment to the Faber <br />Annexation Agreement. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk asked Planning Director Wood for a schedule on the amendment to the Faber <br />Annexation Agreement. Wood estimated the amendment could be available for the first <br />meeting in April. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 14, SERIES 2004 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING <br />REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT - LOUISVILLE/SUPERIOR PARK <br />N RIDE REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND <br />SPECIAL REVIEW USE <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk called for Staff presentation. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.