Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />May 2, 2000 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Sisk asked Geil if the 2000 figure of 12% cash in-lieu dedication was approved, would he <br />sue the City as he indicated in his letter dated April 28, 2000. <br /> <br />Geil stated that the applicant does not have a problem with the 2000 appraisal of the land <br />value. However, they do have a problem with 2000 appraisal, which includes <br />improvements. He further stated that a Court should determine the amount of cash in- <br />lieu dedication and any excess should be refunded. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that historically, Council considers current land value when calculating cash <br />in-lieu dedication. Sisk stated that it was his opinion that the City is being asked to <br />deviate from procedures. <br /> <br />Geil stated that the position they are taking is very clear, that the 1996 Subdivision <br />Agreement does not address current market value. Geil stated that he believes the 1996 <br />Agreement should be followed. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that if that were the case, then the City should not deviate from the required <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Mr. Geil stated that he is willing to compromise, and has no problem going with a 2000 <br />appraisal, without improvements. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Staff which PUD is currently in effect on the property. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the PUD currently in effect is the 1981 recorded PUD, which includes 5 <br />lots, a 25' setback on Bella Vista and lot 3, a duplex lot, a 10' setback on Roosevelt. He <br />also noted there is a 25' rear setback, with side yard setbacks of 5', with the exception of <br />the south property line, where it is 10'. Wood stated that all the common property lines <br />were based on a total of 5' to the property line, a total of 10' between structures, and <br />shared access on lots 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Davidson commented that the original PUD was similar to a duplex PUD and asked why <br />the development is entirely different from the surrounding neighborhood. <br /> <br />Wood stated that it was amended to be current with code. He explained that when a side <br />yard is adjacent to a rear yard, there is a more restrictive setback than the original PUD <br />contemplated. <br /> <br /> <br />