City Council Minutes 1999 02 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

any displeasure. He stated that the neighborhood around Paradise Lane has changed significantly in the past few years. He requested a meeting with Kevin Stanbridge from the City of Broomfield to discuss the future mall and the impact that the traffic would have on Paradise Lane. Stanbridge suggested the residents of Paradise Lane approach the City of Louisville to discuss annexing into Louisville. The neighborhood met in June '98 to discuss this. There was unanimous consent among the residents that they felt like they were part of Louisville, especially in light of the fact that Louisville allowed the residents to tap into their water line when the neighborhood wells went dry a few years ago. In July '98, the residents submitted a letter to the Mayor of Louisville requesting a meeting to discuss annexation. The City of Louisville replied that there were very delicate negotiations on the Northwest Parkway and it was uncertain what Louisville would do. They agreed to get back to us as soon as those negotiations were complete. He expressed disappointment that he did not hoar anything until he received a letter from Boulder County stating that the land was going to be subject to 'rural preservation' status. He questioned the fairness of zoning their land from agricultural to rural preservation while leaving the StorageTek land as agricultural. This provides StorageTek with the ability to apply for annexation and request commercial zoning but the residents of Paradise Lane cannot. In addition, the Boulder County Schools can sell parcels of their land for commercial development; however, the residents of Paradise Lane cannot. He questioned how these determinations were made. He stated that the Paradise Lane properties have been devalued from the surrounding development. He expressed surprise for the number of people in support of the Northwest Parkway at the Boulder County Commissioners public hearing. The negative comments and questions were centered on two subjects. First, the property owners questioned the fairness of rezoning their land to rural preservation; and second, questioned why the road had to go through people's homes. He urged Council to listen to the public comments and reconsider the annexation request for Paradise Lane. Tom Ragonetti, attorney, 950 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1600, Denver, Colorado, 80202, stated that he is representing the Trillium Corporation property and the Boulder County Land Venture property. The properties are 170 acres and 155 acres, respectively. They were annexed together as part of a larger annexation to Louisville in the '70s and zoned for industrial and commercial development. The appropriateness of that zoning was reconfirmed by the City Council of Louisville as recently as a year ago when'the Boulder County Land Venture attempted to rezone its property to residential. The City of Louisville was not in favor of that and felt that the industrial zoning in place was appropriate. The Intergovernmental Agreement differs in its treatment of these properties as it calls for both properties to be in the City preservation area with residential zoning at a density of one unit per five acres. Residential is unsuitable for properties that lie either adjoining or on both sides of a limited-access highway surrounded by commercial and industrial development. The findings of the City of Louisville identified poor pedestrian access to schools and lack of any adjacent facilities or services. He stated that if the Intergovernmental Agreement is carried through as planned, he believes his clients will have multiple potential claims against the City of Louisville, which could total in excess of $20 million. They would prefer that the City of Louisville leave the properties as they are and allow them to develop and market their properties, or if the City of Louisville