Laserfiche WebLink
Mayer asked Brisnehan where he felt the legal commitment of the City was in terms of, if the lake got <br />drained, that the City would grant you an additional open space dedication. <br /> <br />Brisnehan stated that it is either in the Subdivision Agreement for Louisville Plaza's 1 or 2. Craig <br />Duffin, at the time, recommended that the City would do the property owner's portion, if they <br />contributed $13,000. The apparatus that is leaking is not on their property, but further down. <br /> <br />Mayer felt there was a question as to whether the lake would be abandoned. If it is, would there a <br />formal commitment to change the open space dedication. Then, whether the City would be getting <br />an acre more of land. <br /> <br />Davidson wondered how the City could make a decision on draining the lake or repairing the dam, <br />when they don't control the dam. <br /> <br />Brisnehan: The City controls the headgate, which is about two- <br /> thirds of the way into the Pow-Wow Grounds. <br /> <br />Davidson asked if there was an approved General Development Plan? <br /> <br />Wood stated that there is a General Development Plan that included filings 1 and 2 and the Alvenus <br />parcel approved in November 1990, which addresses land use, roadway alignments, and open space <br />area locations. Wood showed Davidson where the open space was located. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the General Development Plan shows the open space dedication is 1.07 acres <br />short. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Brisnehan: <br /> <br />Are you proposing to fill your portion of the lake, so <br />it's not a lake any more? <br /> <br />That's correct. <br /> <br />Davidson wondered what the original agreement said as far as lake surface area vs. what happens if <br />parts of the lake disappears? He wondered why this was not in compliance with the General <br />Development Plan for open space? He stated that this is also not in compliance with Resolution No. <br />34, Condition 1. He wondered why staffeven brought this to Council at this time? <br /> <br />Levihn stated that they could distinguish between Public Service right-of-ways and other right-of- <br />ways for open space if it is critical to things like the trails. He wondered why land was valued at <br />100% for open space and water is only 50%. <br /> <br />Wood stated that there was no precedent set at the time this agreement was made. <br /> <br />Levihn felt they should be of equal value. <br /> <br /> <br />