Planning Commission Minutes 2010 03 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 11, 2010 Page 3 of 13 1) Dated February 17, 2010 regarding an “Overview of the Colorado Vested Property Rights Statute”. 2) Dated January 22, 2010 regarding “waivers of Yard and Bulk Requirements During the GDP and PUD Approval Processes Fleming recommended approval of Resolution No 5, Series 2010, recommending to City Council an amendment to Title 17 of the LMC, concerning the creation of vested property rights. Loo moved and Pritchard seconded a motion to enter into public records the letters received regarding Vested Property Rights. Motion passed by voice vote. Lipton requested public comment. Members of the Public: Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson, stated he does not support the requested Vested Property Rights Code amendment. He stated the current system of review by the Planning Commission and City Council provides for good design. John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, discussed the comment “avoid surprises” on page 2 of th the February 25 staff report. He stated the early vesting is not directly related to waivers. He stated the early vesting is the recipe for surprises. He encouraged the Planning Commission to continue to draft laws, i.e. Code Amendments, that are best for the Community Annie Hughes, 1405 Garfield Ct., stated she does not support the request. The request for waivers should come through the final review process before both Planning Commission and City Council. Michael Menaker, 1827 Chokecherry Dr., stated he supports the requested code amendments. He stated the adoption of the amendment does not require City Council to use it. The Vested Property Rights agreement process would be available at the discretion of City Council. Rich Lopez, 445 Arapahoe, Boulder, stated the passing of the ordinance amendments will more than likely create property litigation that the City would not want. Vesting property rights at an earlier date prevents the City from negotiating with the developer later in the project. Susan Morris, 934 W. Maple Ct., requested the Commissioners vote “no” for the vested property rights code amendments. She stated her concerns regarding City liability, vesting as a use by right, and the need for detailed plans before granting waivers. Commission Questions: Russell asked what will constrain the City Council to these vested rights, i.e. what criteria will be used. Fleming stated the good judgment of City Council will provide the constraints. Russell expressed concern with the public awareness process and how surprises can be avoided regardless of the vesting.