Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR BUSINESS: <br />APPROVAL OF SPRUCE LANE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT <br />AMENDMENT Phare stated that there are two agreements that <br />relate to this item -- the first agreement is <br />between the City and the Goodhue Ditch Company and <br />the second is an amendment to the Spruce Lane <br />Subdivision Agreement. The Agreement with Goodhue <br />Ditch Company involves certain maintenance <br />obligations and other arrangements in re-locating <br />the ditch and the location of a bike path and <br />detention pond. The City is agreeing to take over <br />certain maintenance obligations of the ditch in <br />this particular area. The Spruce Lane Amendment <br />outlines certain obligations that the developer <br />will fulfill while the City will monitor those <br />public improvements that the developer is agreeing <br />to perform. <br />Sackett moved and Carnival seconded to approve the <br />Spruce Lane Subdivision Agreement Amendment and <br />the Goodhue Ditch Agreement. Motion passed 4-0. <br />APPROVAL OF BID AWARD - SOUTH BOULDER ROAD <br />PROJECT Stahl explained that the Sales Tax Election in <br />March 1989 outlined improvements on South Boulder <br />Road from Highway 42 east to the City limits of <br />Louisville. The contemplated budget for the <br />project was $800,000. It was anticipated that <br />$400,000 would come from Boulder County, $200,000 <br />would come from the proceeds of the bonds that <br />would be sold subsequent to the sales tax increase <br />approval, and an additional $200,000 would be <br />contributed by adjacent property owners. <br />Louisville did in fact receive the $400,000 from <br />Boulder County for these improvements and <br />Louisville began negotiations with developers who <br />have contracts on various parcels of property on <br />the north side of South Boulder Road, east of <br />Highway 42, and with adjacent property owners to <br />discuss the feasibility of creating a Special <br />Improvement District (SID). <br />The actual property owners, who are the Kings, <br />Danailoffs and Fosters primarily, are not <br />supportive of creating and SID at this time. <br />Prior to the election it was anticipated that the <br />plans for the shopping center would have developed <br />in a timely fashion and in fact, the Danailoffs <br />and Fosters would no longer be the owners of the <br />property, and R B Development would be voting <br />along with the owners of the Schempp property to <br />create the SID. Without R B Development being <br />able to control the property and vote for the SID, <br />the City is at this time without the availability <br />2 <br />