Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(four approved) in Parcel"G" totaling 260,387 s.f. Parcel"H" currently has four approved uses for <br />a total of 130,917 s.f. If LaQuinta Inn is approved on Lot 3 it would increase to a total of 193,894 <br />s.f. As identified in Section l(b) of the Agreement, the reallocation of23,000 s.f. from Parcel"G" <br />to Parcel "H" shall not increase or modify the maximum of 515,000 s.f. of the building area available <br />for retail use. <br /> <br />Sisk called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Don Shonkwiler, Sears Development Co., explained that reallocating non-buildable square footage <br />area from Parcel"G" to Parcel"H" would allow the LaQuinta Inn to be approved on Parcel "H". <br /> <br />Sisk called for public comments. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />Sisk called for Council questions. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that the traffic flow on McCaslin, especially by Hwy. 36, had increased greatly. He did <br />not know why Council would want to increase that as the traffic flow cannot be handled now. <br /> <br />Shonkwiler stated that the traffic problems are from residential traffic during the morning and <br />afternoon rush hours with people from Louisville and Superior going to Denver and Boulder. The <br />interchange was built with no anticipation that Rock Creek Ranch would ever occur. He felt that by <br />reducing the numbers of cars using this facility in half and spreading those trips across the day, <br />because hotel guests would be coming and going at different times, it would help by spreading the <br />flow of traffic. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that this is Louisville's most sensitive parcel. He did not know why Council would want <br />to add a more massive hotel than would be there otherwise. <br /> <br />Howard felt the additional traffic generated would be insignificant overall. <br /> <br />Levihn agreed with Howard. <br /> <br />Sisk was concerned about the increase of approximately 10% to Parcel "H". <br /> <br />Shonkwiler pointed out that the traffic conditions of the interchange are not of the making of Homart <br />or its planning. It had been through land use changes that were never contemplated at the time the <br />interchange was constructed. <br /> <br />Howard moved that Council approve Resolution No. 21, Series 1996, the Sixth Amendment to the <br />Amended and Restated Development Agreement. Seconded by Levihn. Roll call was taken. Motion <br />passed by a 3 - 2 vote with Mayer and Sisk voting against and Davidson and Lathrop being absent. <br /> <br />4 <br />