City Council Minutes 2000 05 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 9 Davidson asked Staff for clarification that the original side yard setbacks are not compliant to RL zoning, and that Staff is proposing compliance. Wood confirmed that Staff is proposing side yard compliance. Davidson asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Geil asked if Council would consider discussing setbacks at this time. Mayer stated that there were a number of outstanding legal issues that require detailed analysis by the City Attorney. He requested a legal position be obtained with regard to the cash in-lieu dedication, the PUD plan, and on whether it is a 5 or 6 lot PUD. He suggested that this matter be continued until a legal opinion is available. Sam Light, City Attorney stated that the issue is not whether the PUD allows 5 or 6 lots. He explained that preference of 5 or 6 lots is not an option because the PUD must match the legal description of the plat. With regard to the applicant' s dispute of the cash in-lieu dedication payment, Light stated that nothing in the 1996 Amendment would have prohibited the Subdivider from discharging its payment obligation upon execution of the Amendment, prior to completion of further improvements. Light noted that an appraisal was not submitted in 1996. Davidson asked Wood, if the PUD should be compared with the RL zoning, why would variances be granted to the RL zoning. Wood stated that he presented the Planning Commission recommendation but recommended the applicant comply with the setbacks. Sisk asked Wood, in his analysis of the zoning, if this plan met the criteria of the RL zoning. Wood stated, with the exception of three 5' setbacks, it meets the criteria of the RL zoning. Wood noted that the RL zoning is more restrictive on building heights. Mr. Geil stated that the applicant has given up land which compressed the lot, and therefore requested a 5' setback. On lot 6, there was a 10' setback along the back which minimized the width of the house. Sisk asked City Attorney Light about the approval of the 6 lots. Light stated there was a ResolutiOn in 1981 that approved the Final PUD and a replat, however there was no document or performance criteria associated with that PUD document.