City Council Minutes 2004 10 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting October 19, 2004 Page 7 of 15 COUNCIL COMMENT Council member Levihn agreed it is unfortunate the right-of-way issue resulted in a neighborhood dispute. He stated if he had to vote, he would vote on a compromise rather than a right-of-way vacation. He stated Louisville is a walking and biking community and the public will access the park through the public right-of-ways. He stressed no vehicle traffic will access Front or Main Street. Council member Van Pelt apologized that the applicants for not meeting with them in the compromise discussions. She stated they attempted to find a reasonable compromise. She noted the Council must represent all the citizens, and it was her hope the applicant would have considered the two options offered by the City. Council member Brown stated he had an opportunity to visit the property in question and with the applicants. He voiced his support of vacating the Front Street right-of-way. He also supported directing Staff to re-evaluate the options and include the applicants in the discussions. Council member Marsella voiced her appreciation of the human element and expressed her concern with the neighborhood dispute. She recognized the role of the City Council as the stewards of public land and voiced her belief the Council has a duty, barring any evidence of title or vacation, to maintain City land. She stressed this public access to the park has been promised at several public meetings. Council member Keany asked City Attorney Light to clarify the Council's options with respect to Ordinance No. 1453, Series 2004. City Attorney Light explained there are three options for Council to consider: 1) Approve the application 2) Disapprove the application or 3) Continue consideration on the ordinance. Council member Keany asked if the application were denied, could a lawsuit be filed. Attorney Light explained the applicant may bring an action for some declaratory relief that the right-of-way was abandoned. He noted there is a burden of proof for that action. Mayor Sisk asked Planning Director Wood if there has been any research on the abandonment of the right-of-way. Wood stated there was no ordinance or testimony in the record substantiating a claim of abandonment. Mayor Sisk asked if the title insurance would show the property ownership. City Attorney Light stated the title insurance would disclose the plat. He noted the legal descriptions for the property do not include the right-of-way. Mayor Sisk stated he would vote on the ordinance on a legal basis and not on an empathy or sympathy basis. He was concerned over the attitude of all or nothing over the right-of- way. He preferred a compromise to allow public access and the applicants to utilize the property. He thanked the residents who gave testimony.