City Council Minutes 2014 03 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes March 18, 2014 Page 6 of 20 Mayor Pro Tern Dalton favored retaining the option to sell a portion of the property. He noted there was no requirement to sell of the entire 1 .8 acres He addressed the new Section 7, which requires the demolition of the property, and noted if there is interest in non-governmental entities to use the building, the provision to demolish the building within 12 months of closing should be removed. Council member Keany felt Council member Jasiak made a compelling argument on not selling a portion of the project. He noted there is a need for more parking. He supported leaving the language in to allow a future sale of the church building. He was more inclined to keep the structure as part of the open space/park property. He voiced his concern over the sale of the structure and a future use not complimenting the open space/park area. He was also concerned the Church building would be a money pit. Council member Jasiak stated there is only one entrance on South Boulder Road and none from Via Appia. She supported preserving funds, but felt it would be shortsighted to purchase the property for parks and open space and sell a portion of the parcel. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Honstein, 727 Pine Street, Louisville, CO noted purchase opportunities often do not always arrive at the right time. She agreed all the finances must be in order before all the other pieces are put together. She liked the flexibility and favored citizen participation. She did not feel a decision on demolishing the building was necessary at this time. Suzanne Granger, 1609 Cottonwood Drive, Louisville, CO a member of the HOA suggested the land be left undeveloped. She noted at one time there were concerts in the park. She stated there is a path through the park, made by walkers. She felt the park is a destination park for the City, but the parking is limited. Mayor Muckle closed the public hearing. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council member Lipton looked at this parcel as a legacy to the future. He did not want to cut off the City's options and was interested in the upcoming small area planning. He favored flexibility, but did not support keeping the building. He asked if Council could revisit the demolition at a later time. City Attorney Light stated as owners of the property it would be administrative direction on how to deal with improvements on the property. If the optional language to demolish the building was adopted, the City Council could provide different direction, but it would require the adoption of an ordinance to remove the optional language. ORDINANCE No. 1660, SERIES 2014 31