My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2002 05 14
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2002 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2002 05 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:22:42 AM
Creation date
9/15/2010 9:40:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2002 05 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
The Balfour project contains 103 units, comprised of one and two bedrooms and two cottage units. <br />The architect submitted a fixture count of 2,300, without irrigation, which would be a 340 gallon- <br />per-minute flow. Tom Phare explained that the current ordinance providing for 60% of the standard <br />tap fee is supportable, given the fact that a number of units in the Balfour development are two <br />bedroom units with likely higher occupancy rates. Balfour has stated that they feel a 3” tap is <br />adequate; however, Phare did not believe this is supported by the demand calculation for the project. <br />He explained that the occupancy rate is difficult to determine for the project. The per person use may <br />be low; however, extensive landscaping use increases the per person use. He went on to explain that <br />each community calculates their water fees based differently; some recap capital improvement costs <br />and other do not. <br /> <br />There was some discussion whether to consider the property a commercial property rather than a <br />residential property. Jay Keany & Tom Mayer stated that they did not believe the City of Louisville <br />could offer a commercial tap fee to a property that was not taxed as a commercial property. <br /> <br />Tom Mayer suggested that the City have an independent analysis completed to determine whether <br />the project is commercial or residential. <br /> <br />Rich Lopez, attorney for Michael Schoenbrun, stated that the majority of independent living facilities <br />are occupied by widows/widowers. He also stated that Arvada and Westminster have determined <br />that impact fees should be different for senior housing. <br /> <br />Tom Mayer expressed support for Tom Phare’s calculations. <br /> <br />Mayor Davidson stated that the City could not review each use for tap fee requests; fees must be set <br />based upon an average. The City’s tap fees are set to cover costs. <br /> <br />Don Brown questioned whether this use was so different that it would warrant a special tap fee. <br /> <br />Michele Van Pelt questioned whether the City Council really wanted to go back through the entire <br />fee structure just for this type of facility. <br /> <br />Water Conservation Plan Update <br />Tom Phare and Peggy Flaherty stated that the City has formed a working group to address water <br />use. The Council Water Committee approved the proposal for mandatory restrictions outlining <br />watering two nights per week for ten minutes per zone. <br /> <br />There was discussion on methods to inform the citizens about the watering restrictions. Council <br />members stated that they did not realize the severity of the drought; therefore, the citizens might not <br />either. Staff explained that the City will place ads in the local newspaper, contact businesses and <br />homeowner associations, establish a City hotline, and place information on the City’s website. <br /> <br />Mayor Davidson stated that it is important for the City to have a person available to speak to <br /> <br /> 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.