City Council Minutes 2001 12 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting December 4, 2001 Page 11 Sisk asked Pedersen if he was paying $3.50 per SF for the property. Pedersen stated that the purchase price is a private transaction. Sisk stated that the development contract is contingent upon City approval of the subdivision. He noted that when the developer closes on the property, the purchase contract could be higher than the appraisal rate, and the City will be locked in to $3.50 per SF. Sisk read the Annexation Agreement, Paragraph 10, which stipules "Upon subdivision and/or development of the property, ANNEXOR agrees to meet the requirement of Section 16.6.060 of the LMC, relative to the dedication of land, by the payment of 12% of the land of the appraised value of. the property to the City." He referred to the and/or clause and asked Pedersen if it was his opinion that portion be reformed. Pedersen stated that the portion of the LMC reflects that upon subdivision and/or development, the value of the property should be known, however it does not reflect that the land should be appraised. He felt that the section was ambiguous. Sisk stated that during the time since annexation, Mr. Zurick has paid little property taxes on the parcel because it was not subdivided. Sisk stated that the overall project as proposed is excellent, however there are a few obstacles to overcome. One is the 12% cash in lieu of land dedication; the second is the Grease Monkey location. Sisk asked why the auto/lube location would be attractive to the citizens. Pedersen stated that the citizens utilize cars and would require that service. He stated that McCaslin Blvd is lacking in auto/services. Sisk asked if the applicant if he believed that McCaslin Blvd should have automotive uses facing McCaslin. Pedersen stated that there is an existing automotive use facing McCaslin. Sisk noted that the Centennial automotive store does not face McCaslin. He stated that he had a problem with the automotive use. Davidson stated that to the best of his recollection, the master developer of Centennial Valley paid 5.6 million dollars for the current Interchange at McCaslin. The purpose of the McCaslin Interchange Fee was to make other landowners pay an equal amount already paid by the developer. By charging the fee, the development will be equal with all other developments along McCaslin. Wood confirmed that Davidson's statements were correct. Davidson asked Wood if the cash-in-lieu of land dedication fee in the CTC was set by the appraised fees in the 1970's or set when the value of the development was proposed. Wood stated that the cash-in-lieu was set at the time of subdivision. 11