Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 16,2010 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br /> <br />Councilor Muckle opposed changing the city's procedures. He felt the current process <br />is efficient and straight forward and provides for waivers. He stated the ordinance <br />provides an unnecessary tool. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO felt it comes down to the <br />details in the vested rights a~lreement. He supported the passage of the ordinance. He <br />noted the Council will be rigorous in their examination of vested rights agreements. <br /> <br />Susan Morris, 939 W. Maple Court, Louisville, CO opposed the passage of the <br />ordinance, and noted the Planning Commission recommended their review of any <br />vested rights agreement as City Council may not have the time to examine a detailed <br />vested rights agreement. She noted Avista Hospital did receive a 77' height waiver for <br />the hospital but only built a 3 story building. <br /> <br />Richard Lopez, 4450 Arapahoe, Boulder, CO addressed the issue of liability. He <br />referenced the Rob's Music project in Boulder and noted if a vested rights agreement <br />had been in place when the City of Boulder denied their request for a 54' building, the <br />City of Boulder would have been liable for all of the soft costs of the development. <br /> <br />John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, Louisville, CO addressed the Avista Hospital PUD <br />and noted it was approved by the current process. He referenced Mr. Stewart's <br />suggestion that the Preliminary PUD allow transfers from phase to phase and <br />commented not all such proposals have been investigated. He stressed this is the <br />largest development proposal the City has seen. <br /> <br />Alan Sobel, 1408 Kennedy Avenue, Louisville, CO stated there appears to be a balance <br />of responsibilities between ConocoPhillips and the City of Louisville. ConocoPhillips <br />has a capability of a functionality they want to implement, which requires the City to <br />change their laws in order to facilitate that function. He suggested looking at a different <br />way to implement that functionality within the City's current laws. He did not support <br />changing the City's process. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />Councilor Sackett commented on the changes in the development and building industry <br />and stated the ConocoPhillips request is reasonable. He felt the vested rights tool <br />would provide fluidity to the devl310pment process and noted the final phases of the <br />development will be different from the initial phase. He supported the passage of <br />Ordinance No. 1567. <br /> <br />Councilor Dalton supported the ordinance and felt the changes to the Louisville <br />Municipal Code are reasonable. He stressed the City Council has the ultimate approval <br />of any vested rights agreement and suggested adding a provision to the ordinance that <br /> <br />23 <br />