City Council Minutes 2001 12 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting December 4, 2001 Page 12 City Attorney Light stated that Wood's statement was correct with respect to the property outside of CTC Filing One. He noted that Filing One had some specific provisions in the Annexation Agreement that required dedication at the time of annexation for the open space dedication, and an agreed upon amount specifically stated in the Annexation Agreement for the balance of Filing One. Outside of Filing One, there is a general requirement of the City Code of cash in-lieu at the time of subdivision. Davidson asked City Attorney Light if the applicant's request to modify the open space dedication could be changed by resolution. City Attorney Light stated that an ordinance can only be modified by ordinance. Light stated that the applicant has raised a question of the meaning of incorporating the City Code into the Annexation Agreement. The applicant's position is that it ambiguous in setting a time for the valuation of the property. Light stated that nothing in those documents concludes that the property be valued at the time of annexation. He noted that the Annexation Agreement seems to be unambiguous and resolves any time issues. He stated that the appraisal would be done at a time upon development of subdivision of the property, at which time the cash in-lieu issue would be dealt with. Light stated that the underlying ordinance was not changed as it applies to this property. Davidson asked if the ordinance is changed to reflect the appraisal time for the valuation of this property, wouldn't it have to been done for all property owners. Light stated that the ordinance is a legislative act that requires uniformity on all properties. He noted that Council has the authority to initiate development agreements. Davidson asked Planning Director Wood if an automotive use is compatible with the surrounding development. He referenced a letter of objection filed by Koebel and Company. Wood stated that, based on the applicant compliance with the design modifications requested, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Special Review Use. Davidson stated that based on the Koebel and Company letter, they still object to the SRU, in spite of compliance of the recommended modifications. He asked Wood how the SRU is compatible with other developments. Wood voiced his opinion that based on the modifications made, the 3,700 SF will not impact other developments. Davidson asked about the shared access with Koebel and Company, and noted that their letter referenced objections. Pederson stated that the final resolution with Koebel and Company is that they prefer not to have an automotive use on the site. He stated that Koebel and Company have commercial property near Lowe's, which could be developed for automotive uses. Pedersen stated that they have agreed to pay 100% of the shared access. If Koebel and Company develops their site beyond the next five years, they would not be required to make reimbursement. 12