Planning Commission Minutes 2015 07 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2015 Page 14 of 17 Sherry Sommer, 910 South Palisade Court, Louisville, CO Chairman Pritchard says this will be a long process. You probably don't know how long. Of course, we are asking if it is conforming to the Comp Plan. We are in mid stride with the Small Area Plan. Are we only looking at the Comp Plan or are we looking more towards the future of the Small Area Plan, because that might have a slightly different emphasis than the Comp Plan. I am also wondering if this is the only option. Have there been any other efforts to address these covenants in the private sphere or is this the last stop and the only option that the City would do this? Interim Questions: Troy says the review Ms. Sommer talks about regards the Comp Plan and the Small Area Plan and how it works. If a development application were to come forward to the City, you are being asked to review the plan against the Comp Plan. The Small Area Plan is the implementation of the Comp Plan. It is not the Comp Plan. It is the first step and if the City is interested in modifying the zoning. If an application were to come in prior to the adoption of the Small Area Plan and the subsequent zoning changes, it is subject to the planned community zone district commercial design guidelines. The Commercial Development Design Standards and Guidelines (CDDSG) as well as the underlying zoning which is PCZD-C are what the Planning Department would review against and make recommendations to your body. The Small Area Plan, once implemented with subsequent zoning changes, would eventually replace the underlying zone district, but neither are influencing your decision tonight. Your decision is how does this plan relate to the Comp Plan as written? DeJong says to address the restrictive covenants, it is one tool but not the only tool available. There is the redevelopment potential and finding a tenant that fits within the restrictive covenants. This is not the end of the line. Michael Menaker, 1827 W Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO With all respect to learned counsel, we are talking about Albertsons as if it were a Mom and Pop market. Albertsons is owned by Cerberus Capital Management which according to their website, has $25 billion under management and operates globally. It is also worth noting that in the news yesterday and the day before, Cerberus is anticipating an IPO for Albertsons. The point I am trying to make is there have been several attempts to outright purchase the store with no response. There have been several attempts to buy the covenants with no response. No emails have been returned and no letters have been returned. There just has been no response. As much as I value Albertsons and respect the store manager (I am in that store 5 days a week), I do not think it is reasonable to assume that Cerberus has anyone at any level who has the best interests of the City of Louisville at its heart. I have made the same arguments before City Council that Albertsons counsel made before you tonight and I have changed my mind. There is no real value to the City of Louisville to have a 30,000 sf grocery store and an empty 130,000 sf retail facility which endangers the futures of neighboring Kohls and many of the satellite retailers around it. There is no one more respectful of property rights than I. It has been noted that if this plan moves forward and these covenants are condemned, it is not without compensation which is certainly a matter of negotiation. For the best interests of the City of Louisville and economic vitality of our town and our neighborhoods, I urge you to adopt this plan and find this consistent with the Comp Plan which it most certainly is. Questions and Discussion of Public Comment. Brauneis asks DeJong if you have any particular thoughts on what might be involved in negotiations of using eminent domain to dissolve those covenants? Typically, what is an outcome of that? Is it usually a monetary issue?