Laserfiche WebLink
<br />H.B. 1041 cont'd <br /> <br />The review was then turned over to Mr. Drumm. He <br />stated that much of H.B. 1041 is legal as in- <br />dicated by judicial proceedings that are now going <br />on. He also stated that the preliminary draft <br />which was given to Council is primarily based on <br />a lay interpretation of the document and meeting <br />with the Land Use Commission. He stated there <br />would have to be changes made to get it into the <br />form Louisville wants to adopt. Also that the <br />draft did not contain the administrative criteria <br />and regulations that would have to be developed <br />but it does provide a background on which Coun- <br />cil and citizens of Louisville can build to take <br />the necessary action. <br /> <br />Mr. Drumm proceeded to read the preliminary draft <br />because of the complexity of H.B. 1041. He stated <br />that comments and questions during the reading <br />would be beneficial to Council. <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />Councilman Domenico asked if the State could come in and tell the City that they can <br />not update their comprehensive plan. Mr. Drumm stated that the County can not approve <br />the update but they can not say that you can not update the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl asked Mr. Drumm how the State guidelines varied from the Countys. <br />Mr. Drumm stated that the vary was substantial. The state identified some categories <br />A New Community can be a new town in town, he felt that this would be oriented as <br />in the Burlington Northern in their yards in Denver; a satelite community would be building <br />a new community. <br />Mr. Drumm stated that for the County the municipal annexation outside a jointly adopted <br />plan area is one of their criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl stated that the crux of the City argument is the County interpretation re- <br />garding annexations. He asked Mr. Houlehand if there would be the development of <br />any legal problems if the City starts by considering the annexation interpretation as <br />something to be checked on. <br /> <br />Mr. Don Houlehan introduced himself. He stated that he is familar with the present <br />six lawsuits that are pending regarding the Mizel annexation. He stated that the <br />annexation interpretation is the crux of the argument which is being made by the City <br />Attorney that the New Communities definition that appears in the statute is being <br />carried to extremes both by the Land Use Commission and Boulder County as to what <br />they are saying it covers. Mr. Houlehan stated that the Land Use Commission and <br />Boulder County were taking the new community interpretation is being taken to extremes <br />also. Mr. Houlehan stated in 1972 and 1973 major land use legislation was opposed and <br />in 1974 H.B. 1041 was adopted because it delegated control to the local level. Mr. <br />Houlehan stated that of all the different guidelines that are called for under H.B. 1041 <br />he was only aware of two set of guidelines that were adopted so far - the Land Use <br />Commission and Boulder County. He stated that word was given to Louisville at the end <br />of April from the Land Use Commission that the City must go ahead with the regard to th <br />Mizel property and take action as far as designating a new community and designating <br />it a matter of state interest and take action with regard to that. Mr. Houlehand <br />stated that the hearing was as far as Louisville could go in compling with new communities <br /> <br />-2- <br />