City Council Minutes 2000 06 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting June 20, 2000 Page 7. appraisal must reflect the "most recent appraised value," and that the required appraisal considers the value of all existing subdivision improvements. Johnstone reviewed the proposed yard & bulk regulations, and stated that it is the City Attorney's opinion that the R-L standards should apply to the new PUD application. The applicant has minimized the amount of setback, which varies from the RL Zoning. Staff recommends that the setback for Lots 2 and 3 be modified in conformance with the R-L standards. Johnstone noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the PUD amendment and minor replat on March 14, 2000, with 10 conditions. Davidson called for Applicant presentation. Mr. Phil Geil, Attorney for Bella Vista LLC, 1790 30th Street, Boulder, stated that he did not have anything more to add other than to express his objection to the land dedication based on a 2000 appraisal. He requested that the 1996 appraisal be used to calculate the 12% cash-in-lieu of land dedication. He also opposed the R-L zoning and requested exceptions to the district requirement. Howard asked the applicant if he was requesting a replat. Geil stated that the property was purchased in 1996 and that the applicant asked for a replat of Lot 3. Howard asked Mr. Geil if his two objections were the 2000 appraisal versus the 1996 appraisal for the cash in-lieu land dedication, and the RL zoning and its required setbacks. Geil stated that those were his two objections, that he based the appraisal on the subdivision agreement, and that the setback exceptions were only asked for on Lots 2 and 3. Howard asked the City Attorney for a legal opinion. Sam Light, City Attorney stated that the subdivision is no longer subject to the general ordinance on how cash in-lieu is determined because there is an agreement in place from 1996. He reviewed the agreement which states that the cash in-lieu payment will be made by paying in cash to the City an amount equal to 12 percent of the most recent appraised value of the land to be subdivided. Light stated that the difference of opinion is that the applicant, based on discussions in 1996, believes that phrase means current value as existed in 1996. The minutes from the 1996 meeting use the phrase "current value."