City Council Minutes 2013 01 08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes January 8, 2013 Page 12 of 16 If it is beyond 60 days, it would be continued to a day in certain. If the matter was tabled the public hearing would be closed. He recommended continuing the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Dalton asked if there was not a landmark application before the City, would the tin shed demolition permit be granted. He asked if a Certificate of Alternation is more efficient than a Demolition Permit. It was noted the two processes are identical. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton asked what process is quicker. Planner I Robinson did not believe it would make a difference. Under the HPF ballot language the City could not dispose of the property unless it was landmarked. He felt it would be more efficient to landmark the property. City Attorney Light concurred. Council member Keany stated when open space funds were used for other things, the money was returned to the open space fund. He asked whether the HPC Funds could be returned and the land be used for something else. City Attorney Light stated if a use is something other than what is intended, the funds must be returned. If the Grain Elevator was sold to a developer with the intent to preserve, it would require a conservation easement. Council member Keany felt the landmarking was premature. City Manager Fleming noted the RFP states the City would enact a landmark distinction to the property prior to any sale. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO encouraged the City to landmark the property prior to the sale, but not until then. He stated the boundaries of the property include property the City does not own. City Attorney Light explained the PDF slide shown was not a boundary survey, but a depiction of the boundary of the property acquired by the City. The easement issue with the BNSF is the grain elevator encroaches one foot on the southeast corner across the property line and two feet on the northeast corner of the property line. That does not mean the property line is uncertain, it merely means there is an encroachment into the neighboring property. On the north side (Elm Street) prior to closing the City acquired confirmation from the property owner that their usage of the property was permissive, which means they had not acquired title of any property by way of adverse possession. Randy Caranci, 441 Elk Trail, Lafayette, CO stated the lines on the slide are deceptive and incorrect and gives a false state of right. He stated working with the City has been difficult and negotiations are deadlocked. Mayor Muckle stated the property has a legal description and the City would only landmark what they own. Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville, CO concurred with City Attorney Light's comments and addressed the City's expectation to the developer and the public. He felt the most efficient thing to do is to vote to landmark the property this evening. •