City Council Agenda and Packet 2000 12 05

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting November 8, 2000 Page 4. Davidson moved that the documents outlined by the City Attorney be included in the .record, seconded by Sisk. All in favor. Davidson called for Staff presentation. Planning Director Paul Wood summarized Ordinance No. 1344, and No. 1345, Series 2000, which would annex and zor,~e a 7.6-acre parcel known as the Fischer Annexation. Wood reviewed that landowner/applicant Mrs. JoBelle Fischer (Fischer Farms Development - LLC) is petitioning the City to commence a voluntary annexation of the property located at 701 West >pru~ce Street. The procedural options for Council are for referring the proposed annexation to a vote. He noted that Mrs. Fischer has signed the required annexation agreement without special condition. City Administrator Simmons reported that among the documents submitted into the record, is a letter dated Novembec• 6, 2000 from Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. Simmons noted for the record., on page 4, the details of a telephone conversation he had with Mr. Sparn reflect characterizations and exaggerations that are incorrect. Davidson reopened the public hearing and asked for Applicant presentation. Wayne F. Forman, Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C., 410 Seventeenth Street, Denver, CO, Attorney representing the applicant reported on the law with respect to enclaves. He reviewed that state law outliners the annexation of enclaves and the City's responsibilities. He noted that then Fischer property is an enclave, totally surrounded by the City of Louisville. He stated the property is in unincorporated Boulder County and , zoned Suburban Residential. He stressed there is no way for this project to proceed through the County process, because it is an enclave. He stated that it is appropriate for the City to annex the property. Ht: reviewed the zoning and stated that it is consistent with the surrounding properties. Dorman noted that a petition was submitted with 51 signatures that support the proposal. He stated that the principle opposition of the project and the one that causes the applicant concern, is the discussion of creating a ` neighborhood park on the subject. property. He voiced his concern that the neighborhood park issue is becoming entan€;led with the zoning process. He stressed that the annexation and the zoning process are only tJne first step, and that rigorous PUD requirements will follow. He proposed annexation of the property, approval of the appropriate zoning and allowing the applicant to continue to resolve the issues. He felt that a referendum on the annexation is unnecessary, and a citywide referendum on the zoning is probably inappropriate. Stephen Sparn, Stephen Sparn & Associates PC, 1731 I5`~ Street, Boulder, CO, Project Architect, stated that they are still on a quest for awin/win solution. He summarized the 4