Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 03 11

Home Browse Search

BACKGROUND: Please find attached aresolution recommending amendments to Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) regarding the creation of vested property rights. Staff’s review of the ConocoPhillips’ (COP) development application has raised the issue of when yard and bulk (including height) and land uses/densities may be entitled. COP is seeking to have that occur prior to final PUD development plan approval. The LMC does not currently allow that approach(see attached memo from City Attorney’s office and letterfrom COP). The proposed ordinance would define site specific development plans to include preliminary PUD development plans (currently the definition is limited to finalPUD development plan) for the purpose of establishing vested property rights, but only if and to the extent provided in a vested rights agreement approved and executed by City Council. City staff believes the ability tovest earlier in the development process relates not only to the COP development plans but for future development applications as well. If there is sufficient information and if a development proposal is acceptable to the City Council, allowing vesting of certain aspects of a development proposal may be appropriate for at least two reasons.First,it would avoid surprises among the public. If a developer intends to construct buildings that require a waiver, it is important to make that fact clear early in the development review processand to provide opportunity for public comment and City Council consideration. Otherwise, the public may think there was nothing unusual about the proposal until the very end of the review process. Second, it would avoid the time and expense of developing and evaluating a proposal for which there is little support. Significant resources, both the developer’s and the City’s, must be expended to prepare plans and evaluate a proposal. If City Council can review proposed waivers, consider public comments on them and make a determination whether or not they are appropriate (and specify under what conditions they would be appropriate), it would improve the predictability–for both the developer and the public–of the development process. This is a key reason why ConocoPhillips has requested a vested rights agreement concerning land uses, density, height standards and other yard and bulk requirements at a time prior to final PUD development plan approval. A related question is whether a preliminary PUD development plan is sufficient to serve as a site specific development plan for purposes of vesting. Under the state statute, a site specific development plan is a plan “describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use” for specific propertyandmay include, by way of example, documents ranging from a preliminary or general development plan to a final PUD planto a vested rights agreement.Under City processes, a preliminary PUD development plan may include specific and certain provisionson some issues—e.g. permitted uses—but potentially not others—such as final architectural design or landscaping. The proposed ordinance allows for vesting at the preliminary PUD stage only if and to the extent provided ina vesting agreement, thereby allowing for aspecific agreement on the rights being vested. 2