My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1979 03 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1979 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1979 03 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:30:39 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 10:43:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
3/20/1979
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1979 03 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mayor and City Council Memorandum <br /> March 16, 1979 <br /> Page 3 <br /> The assessment of the actual need for a shopping center is once again a question <br /> of judgement. Those individuals which do not stied the limited and deftciMat <br /> :bo ping opportunities in Boulder County and within the City of Louisville. or <br /> re wit i* oomilenent and reasonable &Irina time probahly c eelwde that <br /> L eisaille dmmlowntAkeed tit shopping centahr. Thoeff4peoplh that -think the <br /> present shopping situation .Se undestrable 11e0ld omelette-that shopping caster is - <br /> Needed. The-Ct;i' of Baader does Not appear to be hale it.accauodatt such a • <br /> facility anri ti �;Ladswi . location is a most dest !Br seek a face iq►« . <br /> r . <br /> Free the st*r*.iwt-#. �re�rM^ am ad sfats�a4 # t�t"CQ tty and Cliffs ah -. <br /> the outflow sr dollars to i eecaf facilities is shaidtt a sgl adirtfaF ."- <br /> fa Boulder Gouaty. While Louisville residents appear to hi qqww7 i t► <br /> urban services-aed in fact continually demand services of higher quality and in- <br /> creased variety, people which are In opposition to the shopping center, would sew <br /> to indicate that the economic benefit is not necessary. Obviously the provision <br /> of high quality city services requires ever increasing levels of funding, and to <br /> the extent that the City can achieve such revenues without destroying quality of <br /> life, etc., it should. <br /> 3. Urban Sprawl - Critics continually mention urban sprawl as the result of this <br /> development proposal. If the City continues to implement Its coop plan, and there <br /> fs no indication that the City will not, the proposal will not result in urban <br /> sprawl. We recognize that the City of Louisville does not control other munici- <br /> palities or Boulder County and therefore we cannot comment as to what the impact <br /> of a shopping center will be on adjacent areas. We are however, Trilling to cooperate <br /> with any nearby municipalities in achieving adequate municipal services which may <br /> assist them in avoiding growth necessary to finance said services. Staff certainly <br /> is not concerned with the County's ability to control development of the unincorp- <br /> orated portions of the County. <br /> 4. Air Quality - £fiery consumption and Waste - Many critics have stated that <br /> the location of this center at any location other than the City of Boulder will <br /> result in increased levels of air pollution and fuel consumption. Staff dis- <br /> agrees with this conclusion. We believe the provision for sub regional centers, <br /> i, a, expanding Crossroads Center, construction ofd center in Longmont and con- <br /> struction of shopping center in Lousiville will result in a fewer miles driven <br /> therefore less air pollution and less furl consumption, not more. The location <br /> of the Centennial Valley mall Is in such close proximity to the City of Boulder <br /> that we believe many Boulder residents would be able to reach the Centennial <br /> Valley mall more quickly with less traffic congestion than they would in fact <br /> be able to reach Crossroads shopping center. Certainly Lousiville, Lafayette, <br /> and Broomfield residents would be able to reach the Centennial Valley mall more <br /> quickly than Crossroads or the Northglenn shopping center. Staff suggests that <br /> these .jnsiderations support the development of a shopping center in the Louisville <br /> area. <br /> S. Traffic - This factor has been reviewed in discussions of related items. It <br /> appears to staff that the traffic generated by the Centennial Valley proposal is <br /> within acceptable limits without significant alterations of the major thoroughfares <br /> provisions of our comp plan. It is int.resteinmgq to note that even the County comp <br /> plan provides for South Boulder Road to be a principal arterial street capable <br /> of carrying up to 28,000 vehicles a day. Thus, both the Louisville Plan and the <br /> Boulder County Plan have anticipated traffic loadings similar to those which <br /> will result from the Centennial Valley proposal. <br /> Additionally, the traffic impact of attempting to greet all shopping needs in the <br /> City of Boulder would be significantly less desirable than in trying to distribute <br /> shopping needs throughout the County. One only has to drive to Crossroad shopping <br /> center to understand the implications of doubling, tripling or quadrulpling the <br /> size of that facility, an expansion which would be required to adequately meet <br /> the shopping needs of Boulder County. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.