Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Light replied that the PUD would, in fact, become invalid. The PUD assumes that the exchange <br />would be effectuated and the applicant would gain a parcel of land that they would incorporate into <br />the PUD. The PUD also always assumed that whatever the drainage and landscaping plan was, it <br />would be consistent with the City's plan. <br /> <br />Mayer stated he feels this land exchange is for the benefit of the developer and to the detriment of <br />the City. It has been clearly understood that, for the trade to move forward, it was incumbent upon <br />the developer to make it work. <br /> <br />Lathrop moved that Council continue Ordinance No. 1279, Series 1998 - Authorizing the Sale and <br />Conveyance of a Parcel of Land Owned by the City of Louisville to the May 5, 1998 City Council <br />meeting, seconded by Davidson. Roll call was taken. Motion failed by a 3 - 4 vote with Davidson, <br />Keany, Sisk, and Mayer voting against. <br /> <br />Davidson announced the motion failed and Council would continue with the public hearing. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />Davidson called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak on Ordinance No. 1279. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />. <br />Davidson closed the public hearing and called for Council comments or questions. <br /> <br />Levihn asked if the applicants received notification that this Ordinance would be on the Agenda for <br />tonight's meeting. <br /> <br />Simmons replied that the applicant was present at the March 17 meeting when the Ordinance was <br />continued until March 31, and he assumed that they were aware on March 31 that it was continued <br />until this meeting. The applicant acknowledged the time period and stated they would be able to <br />resolve the issue prior the meeting on March 31. There is a meeting scheduled April 22 between the <br />applicant and staff. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that the applicant and City staff have spent a significant amount of time listening to <br />and working through this project. He questioned the logic of denying the Ordinance, causing the <br />applicant to begin the process again and subjecting Council to review the project one more time. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he understood that the developer did not disclose information to Council regarding <br />drainage issues. Had these issues been disclosed, he did not know how Council would have reacted. <br />He thought, in fairness, Council needed to look at the way the developer has treated the City of <br />Louisville. <br /> <br />4 <br />