City Council Minutes 1997 08 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

center" with the trash enclosures coming offthe actual roadway into their lots and possibility being dumped at the early hours of the moming. The bigger issue was the gateway to the City of Louisville. Davidson called for Council questions and comments. Howard asked what the benefits to the City were other than the potential sales tax. Craig Blockwick, 2225 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado, there on behalf of the applicant, stated that a commitment was made to bear the cost of the asphalt removal and they are willing to contribute $12,500 to the landscaping of Parcel S3. Blankenship pointed out that the Comfort Inn would still maintain very good visibility as you come off of the on-ramp. Lathrop wanted it clarified how, if, and where the land exchange would happen. He felt Council should give clear direction on the view corridor to Planning Commission. He wondered what substantial changes had taken place that would require the City to provide the Comfort Inn with some type of view corridor? Tami Tanoue, Gfiffiths & Tanoue, stated that as one characterizes the view corridor issue as a legal issue, she did not know that there was any legal fight or property right to a particular view. She felt it was a planning issue. She had not had contact with Blockwick on the matter of the land exchange. She would inquire. Blockwick stated that the status of the land exchange as of the last Council meeting was that if Council were to go forward there would need to be a land exchange agreement. An ordinance would need to be passed to authorize the conveyance of the property. The property had not yet been exchanged in their opinion. Wood stated that it was staff's opinion that at the end of the discussion at Planning Commission on June 10 there were still 18 outstanding issues and conditions. The most significant issue was the land exchange. There was also a summarization of the modifications that were incorporated on the site plan. Planning Commission did not have full discussion of this preliminary with regard to many site planning issues nor the significant issue that lead to the staff recommendation of this land exchange. Sisk felt that by Council allowing this preliminary plan to go forward it would be jeopardizing the entire project. It had not been looked at in its entirety. Mayer was concerned that the detention would alter the landscaping plan. He felt that since none of the conditions that the applicant was supposed to meet in terms of the land trade were executed or documents were executed, any of the implicit agreements made four years ago did not have any merit any longer. He did not feel the applicant had any fight to that. He was concerned about two issues: inadequate parking and he felt Council needed to resolve the land issue.