City Council Minutes 2004 05 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting May 4, 2004 Page 7 of 11 Mayor Sisk requested Staff comments. City Manager Bill Simmons responded to Mr. Waldman's complaints with respect to the City Staff. He noted with regard to the March 17th meeting, the points raised by Mr. Waldman did not correctly reflect the conversation that took place. It was Staff's recommendation that Waldman meet with his neighbors. He noted the descriptive term used by Mr. Waldman was his term and not the City Staff's. City Attorney Light clarified that if the Council were to authorize an amendment to the Faber Annexation Agreement, he would recommend the amendment require signatures by all parties and successors of the Faber Annexation Agreement. He reviewed the options available to Council. 1) Take no further action on the requested amendment; 2) Adopt the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement; or 3) Defer action on the proposed amendment and direct the proposed amendment be packaged with an amendment of the Boulder View Subdivision Agreement. Mayor Sisk inquired whether the best option for Council was number 3. City Attomey Light recommended option number 3 or to continue action until an annexation agreement amendment can be obtained that is agreeable to all the successors and to the City. COUNCIL COMMENT Council member Van Pelt requested clarification on why the signatures of all parties and successors of the Faber Annexation are required. City Attorney Light stated at the time Mr. Faber annexed the property he agreed to place a fencing restriction over the entire five acres, which extended to the parties successors. The agreement also contains language, which states all the terms of the agreement are included with the land. Any successor has a right to enforce the agreement as it was originally written. City Attorney Light recommended the amendment require signatures by all parties and successors of the Faber Annexation Agreement. Council member Van Pelt requested clarification on the precedents linking the requirements outlined in the Waldman, Barnes, Leffingwell framework agreement document into the Faber Annexation Agreement Amendment. City Attorney Light stated there is no precedent, because every annexation agreement is different. He noted there have been occasions where the City Council's predecessors have entered into annexation agreements that by contract agree to certain parameters of the property development. Council member Keany asked if Mr. Leffingwell was in agreement with Mr. Waldman's plans. Mr. Leffingwell stated he was in agreement with the plans, but had open issues he wanted incorporated into the agreement. His concern centered on the timing of the project, and as to whether the property is subdivided or built-out. 7