Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />May 2, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Wood stated that the Planning Commission approved the PUD amendment and minor <br />replat with ten conditions. Wood noted that eight conditions are still at issue, and he <br />reviewed those eight conditions: <br /> <br />1. The conveyance of the outlot. <br />2. The conveyance of the shared access easement for lots 1 and 2. <br />3. A required certified real estate appraisal of the entire site. <br />4. Amendment to Subdivision Agreement. <br />5. Proof of current ownership. <br />6. Execution of an amendment to the Subdivision Agreement detailing conditions. <br />7. Utility easement to incorporate a section of the sidewalk on lot 3. <br />8. Correction of "relocation of payment" to "relocation or payment." <br /> <br />Davidson called for Applicant presentation. <br /> <br />Phil Geil, 1790 30th Street, Boulder, Attorney for the applicant, stated that the only item <br />of disagreement is condition number 3, which deals with a required certified real estate <br />appraisal of the entire site. Geil stated that the cash in-lieu dedication should remain the <br />same as the 1996 agreement and not based on the full value of the land. He noted that the <br />agreement does not address improvements. He stated that a Court should determine what <br />amount the cash in-lieu dedication should be. He noted that other than the cash in-lieu <br />issue, they have complied with all the conditions. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Paul Wood, Planning Director, if it was his opinion that if the PUD Replat <br />application is denied, the original PUD approval would take control, or was it the opinion <br />of the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Wood stated that it was his opinion and that he had not yet asked the City Attorney for <br />his opinion. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that this has been a very complicated PUD Amendment process and that he <br />is unclear as to the underlying zoning. Mayer stated that with the threat of a lawsuit and <br />prior to approving variances to the RL zoning, he would request the City Attorney review <br />the City's rights and options. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Mr. Geil the name of the property owner. He noted that some documents <br />show Bella Vista and some Bel Vista, LLC. <br /> <br />Geil stated that the applicant is Bel Vista LLC. <br /> <br /> <br />