City Council Minutes 2001 01 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting January 2, 2001 Page 8. Davidson stated that he agreed with the 28' access, however he did not want the City liable for any claims or injuries. He concurred with Councilman Sisk that a price for the 8' wide access should be established. Wood stated that at the time of platting the property, Staff would require a 28' access easement. It would be up to the applicant to dedicate that property by purchasing it from the underlYing property owner. Mayer asked if there is only a 20' access, and if access is restricted, could the property owner say this is the only access and therefore take it. City Attorney Sam Light stated that the landowner is entitled to legal access at some location. If the City shuts off the Highway 42 access, there has to be compensation or an alternative access made available to the property. The concept of the original dedication is for public access and not limited to City purposes, such as emergency services. Mayer voiced his concern that this would create a bind if the property owner decided not to pay for the access. City Attorney Light stated that the situation would be the same for public dedication by virtue of the original plat. If it is sold for private use, then there is no public interest that can be served. Mayer asked if the other property owner were granted some right of access to this area, would the City be hurting itself by not requiring 28' opposed to the 20'. He asked if the City could require the owner of the adjacent property to purchase the easement at their expense, when there is no other access available. City Attorney Light stated that it could be set up as a cost effective measure. He stated that on the planning horizon there may be absolutely no public interest in the access over the property, but that there may be a need to preserve the possibility of access if the City decides to take away the access on Highway 42. It could be set aside for that use and the owner compensated by the adjacent property owner, when that property develops. Davidson pointed out that in respect to access, there could be an access point at the parking lot of that area, but it might not be possible until the use is determined. MOTION: Sisk moved that Council approve Resolution No. 2, Series 2001, adding to the existing condition 3 that the original easement area, 8' of Lot 15, be dedicated as a