Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 10, 2010 <br />To Louisville Planning Commission, <br />Since I am unable to attend the Feb. 11 Planning Commission public hearing, I am <br />writing to express views on the ConocoPhillips preliminary PUD—specifically on their <br />request that Louisville approve avesting agreement that would give them the rights to put <br />their cart way before the horse. <br />As noted in the Staff Report (page 6) and in the Feb. 3 letter from ConocoPhillips to <br />Heather Balser, ConocoPhillips is requesting that Louisville give them rightsto develop <br />certain building heights, land uses, and yard and bulk requirements, right up front. They <br />want these rights in lieu of adhering to Louisville’s governing land use regulations and <br />require <br />PUD processes that a comprehensive review of the aesthetic, environmental, <br />fiscal, and social impacts that any development may have on the city, prior togranting <br />any waiver requests. <br />ConocoPhillips has asked that the city change the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) and <br />General Development Plan (GDP) rules and processes that everyone else must abide by, <br />just for them. <br />It is my hope that the Planning Commission’s response to the request will be that <br />Louisville has never before allowed itself to be planned by the demands of developers. <br />Instead, our city, like allwell-planned cities, has mandated that all developers—(whether <br />building a small Main Street restaurant or building a large oil company campus)—abide <br />by our development and land use regulations and processes. Lifting those rules and <br />processes for one developer will create an inequitable precedent that I don’t believe <br />Louisville wants to set into motion. <br />Thank you, <br />Gail Hartman <br />724 Ponderosa Court <br />Louisville, CO 80027 <br />