Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />November 8, 2000 <br />Page 4. <br /> <br />Davidson moved that the documents outlined by the City Attorney be included in the <br />record, seconded by Sisk. All in favor. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Staff presentation. <br /> <br />Planning Director Paul Wood summarized Ordinance No. 1344, and No. 1345, Series <br />2000, which would annex and zone a 7.6-acre parcel known as the Fischer Annexation. <br />Wood reviewed that landowner/applicant Mrs. JoBelle Fischer (Fischer Farms <br />Development - LLC) is petitioning the City to commence a voluntary annexation of the <br />property located at 701 West Spruce Street. The procedural options for Council are for <br />referring the proposed annexation to a vote. He noted that Mrs. Fischer has signed the <br />required annexation agreement without special condition. <br /> <br />City Administrator Simmons reported that among the documents submitted into the <br />record, is a letter dated November 6, 2000 from Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. <br />Simmons noted for the record, on page 4, the details of a telephone conversation he had <br />with Mr. Sparn reflect characterizations and exaggerations that are incorrect. <br /> <br />Davidson reopened the public hearing and asked for Applicant presentation. <br /> <br />Wayne F. Forman, Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C., 410 Seventeenth Street, Denver, <br />CO, Attorney representing the applicant reported on the law with respect to enclaves. <br />He reviewed that state law outlines the annexation of enclaves and the City's <br />responsibilities. He noted that the Fischer property is an enclave, totally surrounded by <br />the City of Louisville. He stated the property is in unincorporated Boulder County and <br />zoned Suburban Residential. He stressed there is no way for this project to proceed <br />through the County process, because it is an enclave. He stated that it is appropriate for <br />the City to annex the property. He reviewed the zoning and stated that it is consistent <br />with the surrounding properties. Forman noted that a petition was submitted with 51 <br />signatures that support the proposal. He stated that the principle opposition of the project <br />and the one that causes the applicant concern, is the discussion of creating a <br />neighborhood park on the subject property. He voiced his concern that the neighborhood <br />park issue is becoming entangled with the zoning process. He stressed that the annexation <br />and the zoning process are only the first step, and that rigorous PUD requirements will <br />follow. He proposed annexation of the property, approval of the appropriate zoning and <br />allowing the applicant to continue to resolve the issues. He felt that a referendum on the <br />annexation is unnecessary, and a citywide referendum on the zoning is probably <br />inappropriate. <br /> <br />Stephen Spare, Stephen Spam & Associates PC, 1731 15th Street, Boulder, CO, Project <br />Architect, stated that they are still on a quest for a win/win solution. He summarized the <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />