Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LOUISVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />STAFF REPORT <br />February 25, 2010 <br />ITEM: <br />To consider amendmentsto Title 17of the Louisville <br />Municipal Code concerning the creation of vested property <br />rights <br />PLANNERS: <br />Sean McCartney, Principal Planner <br />Gavin McMillan,Planner II <br />CITY STAFF: <br />Malcolm Fleming, City Manager <br />Heather Balser, Deputy City Manager <br />BACKGROUND: <br />Please find attached aresolution recommending amendments to Title 17 of the <br />Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) regarding the creation of vested property rights. <br />Staff’s review of the ConocoPhillips’ (COP) development application has raised <br />the issue of when yard and bulk (including height) and land uses/densities may be <br />entitled.COP is seeking to have that occur prior to final PUD development plan <br />approval. The LMC does not currently allow that approach(see attached memo <br />from City Attorney’s office and letterfrom COP).The proposed ordinance would <br />define site specific development plans to include preliminary PUD development <br />plans (currently the definition is limited to finalPUD development plan) for the <br />purpose of establishing vested property rights, but only if and to the extent <br />provided in a vested rights agreement approved and executed by City Council. <br />City staff believes the ability to vestearlier in the development process relates not <br />only to the COP development plans but for future development applications as <br />well. If there is sufficient information and if a development proposal is acceptable <br />to the City Council, allowing vesting of certain aspects of a development proposal <br />may be appropriate for a number of reasons. Primarily, it would avoid surprises <br />among the public. If a developer intends to construct buildings that require a <br />waiver, it is important to makethat fact clear early in the development review <br />process. Otherwise, the public may think there was nothing unusual about the <br />proposal until the very end of the review process. <br />Secondarily, significant resources, both the developer’s and the City’s, must be <br />expended to prepare plans and to evaluate a proposal. If City Council can review <br />proposed waivers, consider public comments on them and make a determination <br />whether or not they are appropriate (and specify under what conditions they would <br />be appropriate), it would avoid the expense of further developing a proposal that <br />may garner little support. This is a key reason why COP is currently requesting a <br />vested rights agreement concerning land uses, density, height standards and <br />1 <br /> <br />