City Council Minutes 2015 01 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes January 6, 2015 Page 15 of 18 community and financial sustainability and is a common tool used by municipalities. He felt there were some distortions in the free market for this area and was not convinced the free market could work out the issues on this property. He stated the merger between Albertsons and Safeway will provide some clarity on the future of the Louisville store. He was willing to provide direction for staff to proceed with the preparation of an urban renewal plan. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton stated despite the Council's finding of blight, there is no blight on this property. This process breaks agreements between businesses located on the area. This process is aimed at the disadvantage of all the other businesses in favor of one. He felt it was a misuse of government power to favor one business over another. He opposed the process on that basis. He stated it has already cost staff time and the price of one consultant. It will cost more staff time and consultants time if the process continues, which will ultimately cost the taxpayers more money if the condemnation process goes forward. He voiced his opposition to an urban renewal plan. Council member Loo disagreed and stated there was a finding of blight and the City Council is within their rights to declare blight. She asked City Attorney Light for a legal opinion on the potential of litigation for directing staff to prepare an urban renewal plan. City Attorney Light stated direction to prepare an urban renewal plan does not provide a legal right to challenge the action. He noted there are procedures, which must be followed before adopting a plan, such as Planning Commission approval; 30 -day notice on a public hearing and an additional public hearing before the City Council. If an urban renewal plan is approved there might be a right, under the statute, to challenge the plan. Council member Keany stated he has been generally supportive of the process in the past, but now opposes moving forward with this urban renewal plan process. Council member Stolzmann reported she has spoken to a lot people in the area and there is a sincere desire to eliminate blight and redevelop the property. She agreed with Council member Loo, within the definitions of blight, there are certainly blight conditions on the property. She stated the building owner supports an urban renewal plan and wants to work with the City and there is public support for redeveloping the property. She agreed the Council is within their right to proceed with an urban renewal plan. Council member Leh asked City Attorney Light what would be lost by waiting on the urban renewal plan until after the completion of McCaslin Small Area Plan. City Attorney Light explained according to the statutes, once blight has been found, putting off the urban renewal plan for an extended period of time would prohibit the City from using the current condition survey. Council member Lipton stated his understanding that there could be a problem if the property owner's use was not optimal for the City, which could hinder the City's goals for revitalization and financial sustainability Planning and Building Safety Director Russ stated there are so many layers of issues between the General Development Plan, this