My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2010 04 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2010 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2010 04 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:05:01 PM
Creation date
4/13/2010 9:36:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
4/6/2010
Original Hardcopy Storage
6C2
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2010 04 06
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
331
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 16, 2010 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />the Council has sole discretion on the agreement after receiving recommendation from <br />the Planning Commission. <br />Councilor Yarnell did not agree with the assessment of a vested rights agreement <br />providing fluidity to a development. She felt the amount of detail required in the initial <br />stages would take away the fluidity of the development. She did not support changing <br />the code for one developer. She voiced her concern over having a vested rights tool, <br />which may not be used often enough to have a full grasp of what it can do. She favored <br />looking at a less drastic alternative. <br />Councilor Clabots shared some of the Councilor Yarnell’s concern and stated he could <br />not support the ordinance. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Marsella stated although she did not favor passing the ordinance based <br />on a single request, she supported a detailed vested agreement reviewed by the <br />Planning Commission to protect the City.She supported the passage of the ordinance. <br />Mayor Sisk would have preferred the ordinance came before ConocoPhillips <br />development, but supported the ordinance and the Planning Commission review. <br />Councilor Muckle proposed Ordinance No. 1567 be postponed until the ConocoPhillips <br />Preliminary Plan is reviewed by Council. <br />Mayor Sisk requested public comment and hearing none, closed the public hearing. <br />MOTION: Councilor Dalton moved to approve Ordinance No. 1567, Series 2010 on final <br />reading as amended to allow for Planning Commission review and recommendation, <br />seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Marsella. Roll call vote was taken. The motion carried by <br />a vote of 4-3. Councilors Yarnell, Muckle and Clabots voted no. <br />PUBLIC HEARING – CONOCOPHILLIPS CAMPUS ANNEXATION & INITIAL <br />ZONING, REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD <br />DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUESTS <br />Annexation Documents: <br />1. RESOLUTION No. 9, SERIES 2010 – A RESOLUTION CONCERNING A <br />PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF <br />LOUISVILLE, COLORADO KNOWN AS THE CONOCOPHILLIPS ANNEXATION TO <br />THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, AND FIND THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED <br />ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION <br />2. RESOLUTION No 10, SERIES 2010 – A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN <br />ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS ANNEXATION <br />îì <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.