Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville control of how the fees are used and where the fees <br />would go. <br /> <br />Mayer wanted a District wide impact fee, but if not, then by feeder <br />system. He wanted Louisville to work with those entities who are <br />interested in the impact fee. <br /> <br />Davidson supported impact fees as a method of funding school <br />capital construction, but in the current system schools are built <br />after there is a crisis in overcrowding. He did agree with <br />Lathrop's point on the mechanism of how the School Board imposes <br />the impact fee. He was in favor of all of the cities within the <br />Boulder Valley School District adopting some method, impact fees, <br />or some other method to provide the funding. <br /> <br />Levihn asked that it be included in the letter that Louisville's <br />Council representative be included in the discussions on the impact <br />fees. He felt the letter should come from the Mayor and City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mayer moved that Council approve the letter with Councilman <br />Levihn's suggestions and send on to the School District via <br />Councilman Sisk, as the City's representative. Seconded by Howard. <br />Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 6 - 1 vote with Lathrop <br />voting against. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 1146, SERIES 1994 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF TITLE <br />17 OF THE LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING IMPROVEMENT <br />GU~=RANTEESANDDEVELOPER'S AGREEMENTS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT <br />- 1ST READING - SET PUBLIC HEARING 4/5/94 <br /> <br />Griffiths read by title only Ordinance No. 1146, Series 1994, "An <br />ord~inance amending Chapter 17.28 of Title 17 of the Louisville <br />Municipal Code concerning improvement guarantees and developer's <br />agreements for planned unit developments." <br /> <br />Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that this was to put in the <br />PUD ordinance the ability of staff to require developers of <br />primarily PUD development plans to have a development agreement <br />foI~atted after the City's Subdivision Agreement. It is intended <br />to be used where there is only a PUD, there is already a platted <br />property, and there aren't sufficient guarantees under the <br />particular subdivision to put in place the agreement to secure the <br />guarantee for public improvements. He stated that it's staff's <br />desire to reduce the actual guarantee in the development agreement <br />foI~at to 25% or $25,000, whichever is the greater, not to exceed <br />115%. <br /> <br />Sisk suggested it be not less than 25% or $25,000 and not greater <br />than 115% at the discretion of the Planning Department. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />