City Council Minutes 2015 08 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 12 of 18 the plan the City Council is adopting is to authorize powers and that the implementation of the plan will require a number of discretionary decisions by both the City Council and the LRC. There will be decisions on what projects look like, the RFP process and cooperation agreements. Any agreement must be approved by the City Council in addition to the LRC. The "shall " language allows the LRC to accomplish various items but the UR Plan is not a mandate. He suggested the language could be revised to clarify that intent. Council member Leh addressed Section 12 of the cooperation agreement, and asked for clarification that the Mayor is a member of the LRC. It was clarified Mayor Muckle is a member of the LRC. Council member Leh asked City Attorney Light for the capacity in which the Mayor serves on the LRC. City Attorney Light explained the Mayor is serving as a member of the Louisville Revitalization Commission. The organizing documents of the LRC, as stipulated by the state statues, require the Mayor or a member of the Council shall be a member of the LRC. In 2006 the documents did not stipulate the Mayor or member of Council be a member of the urban renewal board so that provision was included in the original cooperation agreement and that change has since been implemented. Mayor Muckle stated this building has remained vacant for a number of years and it has blighted the area. There are a number of options for changing this area and a lot of effort has been expended to try to utilize the building. Previous brokers, the current owner and staff members have all tried to market the property. One option would be to create an urban renewal plan. Council is looking at this option. PUBLIC COMMENTS R.C. Hanisch, 4643 S.Ulster, Suite 1300, Denver, CO, representing McDonald's, requested his letter objecting to the urban renewal plan be included in the public record. It was confirmed the McDonald's letter was included in the public record. Jonathan Bergman, Davis, Graham and Stubbs, LLP, 1550 17`h Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO, explained his firm represents Albertsons. They also submitted a letter, on behalf of Albertsons, noting various objections to the plan. Albertsons objects to the urban renewal plan because, in its view, it constitutes an improper and unlawful taking of property rights, which he said is Albertsons valuable use restriction on the former Sam's Club site. Their concems included a blight study, without notice provided to Albertsons or the neighboring businesses. He addressed their public records request, which obtained information provided by the City staff. He noted before the Sam's Club property was sold to the current owner, there were discussions about offers to assist in removing the use restrictions on the property. He stated they have concerns about the process and some of the intentions of what may happen. He reported attending a meeting where a citizen asked the identity of the tenant for the site. Mr. DeJong's response was the tenant wanted to remain confidential. He questioned why the information had to be confidential. Albertsons concern is a competitor is intended for