City Council Minutes 2015 09 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes September1, 2015 Page 9 of 18 it is only on one property. He noted there are other mechanisms the City can use such as the Business Assistance Program and other tools as opposed to TIF financing. PUBLIC COMMENT Richard Hill, McDonalds, 939 Dillon Road, Louisville, CO asked for confirmation that should the Council approve the urban renewal project, the use restriction will not be voided and there may be further discussion on restrictions later in the process. Mayor Muckle confirmed the use restrictions would not be voided by Council's adoption of the plan.. He stated the adoption of the plan does not result in any specific action but provides the Louisville Revitalization Commission the authority to begin working on a plan. Sherry Sommer, 910 S. Palisade, Court, Louisville, CO inquired about the language contained in the resolution, which states "in the interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare..." She did not see anything threatening in this property and felt it was greatly exaggerated and disingenuous. With respect to community welfare, she felt the people have spoken what they believe is their welfare in the McCaslin area with the existing covenants. She noted the list of items allowed is very long and there are many things that could happen with the covenants in place. She voiced her concern over the costs and incentives given to new businesses and was concemed the new owner has not offered to pay for removing the restrictions. She felt the City should not be paying for something benefitting the developer. COUNCIL COMMENT Council member Keany noted this process has been a struggle for him, but felt the conditions surrounding the property are preventing it from being an asset for the community.. He voiced his belief advancing a plan at this point is the right thing to do. He would support the urban renewal plan. Council member Lipton stressed the plan does not automatically move toward condemnation. Condemnation would require a super majority vote of the City Council.. He explained the Plan is simply another tool to allow the City to review options for the redevelopment of the property, which may or may not include condemnation. It provides a process for the urban renewal authority to issue RFP's and solicit the market more effectively, which may lead to outcomes not including condemnation. He stated the issue of condemnation is a very serious question, but having the tool available is very important. The residents expect Council to do something to alleviate the blight condition. He would vote in favor of the urban renewal plan. Council member Loo stated it has been a difficult and complex issue. She was convinced going forward with an urban renewal plan is an opportunity for the community to see what options are available for redeveloping the property.