Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />April 4, 2000 <br />Page 11. <br /> <br />They completed all the improvements and agreed to all the conditions recommended by <br />the Planning Commission. Geil asked for clarification on item 3.) "That a current, <br />certified real estate appraisal of the entire site shall be provided to the City to determine <br />the amount of the fee in-lieu of land dedication as required by the amended subdivision <br />agreement". Geil stated that it was his understanding that the value of the appraisal would <br />be based on the raw land value, and not on the land including improvements. <br /> <br />Bill Simmons, City Administrator stated his recollection that the agreement read, the <br />value based on the approved subdivision plat and would include improvements. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney stated that the appraisal standards are based on any <br />governmental enhancements in place at the time of the appraisal and would include the <br />value of the land at the time of the recorded subdivision plat. It would not include the <br />value of public improvements not yet constructed and the residential improvements of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Geil stated that was not his understanding under the original agreement. <br /> <br />Light stated that Council could discuss this under Council comments. He noted that <br />previously in such matters, the Council has authorized the City Administrator to review <br />and make recommendations. He stressed that the Ordinance on land dedications requires <br />approval before the recording of the plat. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that Staff would review this matter and noted that if there were a concern <br />relative to item #3, the Council would not be able to rule on this issue. He suggested <br />tabling the Resolution to another meeting. <br /> <br />Mayer voiced his concerns relative to the waiving of setback requirements and requested <br />variances. He was also concerned by the shared driveways and asked Planning Director <br />Wood why the shared access was being requested. Wood stated that it was consistent <br />with the 1980 proposal and also would limit the number of access points at the <br />intersection of Bella Vista and Rose Street. <br /> <br />Mayer asked who would be responsible of the maintenance of shared driveways. Wood <br />stated that shared access easements require the property owner to maintain the driveways. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that Staff has not been given any direction on the 96th Street connection. <br />He did not see a need for dedication of Outlot A for a street connection. Tom Phare, <br />Public Works Director stated that if the parcel is not used for a street connection it can be <br />converted to a to a landscape buffer or returned to a lot. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />