City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 09 01

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 13 of 18 the property. He noted Albertsons had planned to renovate the store earlier this summer, but in light of the proposed urban renewal plan, they have put the renovation on hold. If the Urban Renewal Plan does not go forward, Albertsons will go forward with the renovation. Albertsons wants a solution that could be a potential win /win for the community. Albertsons has been a partner in Louisville for 20 years and wants to continue in that role. They hope the resolution is rejected. Council member Lipton arrived to the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Richard Hill, Owner and Operator of McDonald's, 939 Dillon Road, Louisville, CO, stated he started as a crew person at McDonald's 44 years ago. His wife does all the office work, and his daughter is the supervisor. He bought the Louisville McDonald's restaurant in 2009 and noted restrictions on the property that there would be no other direct competitors. He stated any other competitors would be detrimental to his business and requested the City Council to keep the exclusion in place. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Muckle emphasized this plan does not make any decisions on what will happen on the property. There may be different decisions on what might or might not change with respect to the covenants. There are different outcomes of what the urban renewal authority might do, once Council gives them the authority to work on the project. He stated it is about the tool and not the outcome. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton stated he would be consistent in this process. He voted no on the finding of blight, because he disagreed there was blight. He stated nothing has changed since last October to change his point of view. He did not agree with the use of eminent domain and because it is part of the urban renewal plan, he would vote no. Council member Stolzmann stated the old Sam's Club site has blighted the City for many years. This has been a long process for present and past Councils. She did not feel the Council was rushing into a decision. This has been concerning to the citizens. The blight of the property has hurt other property owners and businesses to have a large vacant building and it also hurts morale. People want the Council to do something so this is a case where they want the City to intervene in the private sector. It does not have to be done in a negative or argumentative way. The City has letters from the tenants and owners of the property saying they have no objection to the use of urban renewal to remove the blight. She felt the urban renewal tool is appropriate to use in this case. She noted there were some concerns raised and requested more information on the following: 1) a reference made by Mr. Bergman, Albertsons attorney, stating Albertsons did not receive any offers to remove the restricted covenants on their property. 2) Open communication about a prospective tenant. 3) The open records request relative to staff making offers to the potential buyer about removing the 30