City Council Minutes 2010 03 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes March 16,2010 Page 4 of 13 referred to the planning commission, and 2) the vested rights not be transferable. He urged Council to pass Ordinance No. 1567. Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville, CO addressed careful planning and development. He stated the City has a comprehensive plan, zone districts and a PUD process in place. He explained waivers are sometimes necessary. Those requests for waivers can be reviewed by jthe Planning Commission and the City Council. He suggested the Preliminary PUD be allowed to transfer from phase to phase, which would give the developers a guarantee the waivers are in place. Mary Manning, 420 S. Keeler, Bartlesville, OK, representing ConocoPhillips, stated vested property rights are important to ConocoPhillips, to be transparent in their request for a 95' building. She voiced her concern over sending the agreement back to the Planning Commission as it will elongate the process and cause the Planning Commission to look for detail, which is not yet available. Richard Lopez, 4450 Arapahoe, Boulder, CO representing clients who reside at 9350 Paradise Lane, noted at the Planning Commission meetings, the Rob's Music Project was mentioned as an example of why vested rights changes are necessary. He explained vesting can be based on design and improvements to the building, but requires a sufficient amount of detail. He stated Louisville is being asked for early vesting without much detail. He stated there should be more detail to grant exceptions. He urged Council not to support the ordinance. John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, Louisville, CO addressed waivers in the PUD process. He noted at the Planning Commission there was excellent and insightful discussion on vesting rights. He asked all members of Council to view the Planning Commission discussion before voting on Ordinance No. 1567. Annie Hughes, 1405 Garfield Court, Louisville, CO noted the Planning Commission members had a difficult time unclerstanding the vested rights issue. She opposed granting vested rights in the preliminary process. She explained vested rights can be legally challenged. She didn't view vested rights as a useful tool for the City. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilor Muckle inquired about the process for a citizen referendum to terminate a vested rights agreement. City Attorney Light stated any vested rights agreement would be approved by ordinance. After second reading and passage of the ordinance, a referendum may be filed within :W days of the ordinance's publication date. If the referendum was successful, the fate of the referred ordinance would be determined by the voters. If the vested rights were taken away by initiative, the right of initiative would not protect the City from the liability of impairment of vested property rights. Councilor Muckle inquired whettler Council, at the preliminary approval, could choose to 21