Laserfiche WebLink
SSSUM 2002 09 10 <br />Sean Connellan stated that StorageTek’s needs would require approximately 100 acres, leaving <br />roughly 300 acres to develop. <br /> <br />Ray Pittman explained that the biggest challenge is to find a good balance of proposed uses. <br /> <br />Tom Mayer stated that this puts the City of Louisville in a difficult situation. He questioned why the <br />City would want a peripheral property so densely developed. He stated that the City relies heavily on <br />sales tax revenue and development in this area would result in sales tax leakage to Superior and <br />Broomfield. He felt that this development would have no sense of community, as it would be <br />separated from the City by a significant amount of space, and that it would be low in revenue <br />generation yet high in service generation. <br /> <br />Michele Van Pelt asked for clarification that the question for Council isn’t whether or not this would <br />be a viable development, but rather whether or not the City should include this in the current study. <br /> <br />Paul Wood explained that the comprehensive plan was not intended to create value for StorageTek. <br />He stated that the study keeps in mind that Resolution 36, Series 1993 requires that residential <br />growth provide a benefit to the City. <br /> <br />th <br />Don Brown cited the many problems that have been identified in the south sub area, such as 96 <br />th <br />Street & 88 Street traffic, and stated that this plan should at least attempt to solve some of these <br />problems. He suggested that this area might also provide an opportunity for a performing arts <br />complex. <br /> <br />Chuck Sisk expressed concern that StorageTek felt the discussions came to a halt at the August 16, <br />2002 south sub area meeting. He stated that the City would be making a mistake by not listening to <br />the proposed concepts, and getting as much information as possible in order to make a reasonable <br />decision. He felt that the City needed to get the process going. <br /> <br />Tom Mayer stated that, if the City does move forward with this study, they should take a step back <br />and take a broad look at how this would impact the City. <br /> <br />Sean Connellan stated that StorageTek is only asking for the study to move forward. <br /> <br />John Keany felt that precluding any residential would be shortsighted. <br /> <br />Arnie Levihn stated that the City could not tie StorageTek’s hands and agreed that the study has to <br />be a broad-based study. <br /> <br />There was some discussion regarding expanding the RFP (request for proposals). <br /> <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br />