City Council Minutes 2001 12 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting December 4, 2001 Page 16 Davidson asked the Applicant if he wished to make a closing summary. Pedersen addressed the automotive center, Grease Monkey, which is situated on land larger than two football fields. He noted that Grease Monkey sits on the far end of McCaslin. With respect to the McCaslin Interchange fees, he requested Council consideration that the fees be paid prior to occupancy permits. He stated that they would like to continue to work on the condition relative to the trees; otherwise he would negotiate with Walgreen' s. With respect to the open space issue, he voiced belief that different appraisals will give different values. He stated that the appraisal was prepared in accordance with the Louisville Municipal Code and the intent of the annexation agreement at the time it was written. He stated that he was not in a position to accept 12% of the appraisal amount. He stated that they have worked on the project for 18 months and would like Council approval. He requested a five-minute recess to discuss the open space cash in--lieu issue with Mr. Zuricks. Davidson called for a 5-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. Davidson reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Pedersen summarized that the land that is open space is in compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines. He stated that it is a beautiful project with multiple pedestrian jogging areas. The oil change facility is well removed from McCaslin Blvd. The landscaping is far beyond the City' s requirements. He stated that with respect to the open space issue, they would agree to take the higher of the 12% appraised value or 12% of the 25% of the purchase price. Davidson called for any additional public comments. There were no further public comments. MOTION: Mayer moved that Council approve Resolution No. 61, Series 2001, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with one additional condition that an appraisal of the property is mutually agreed upon by the City and the property owner, seconded by Sisk. City Attorney Light voiced concern that the additional condition is in conflict with condition//4 of the resolution. He suggested an amendment that would combine the two conditions. Davidson asked Councilman Mayer about the intent of the additional condition, whether it is to be negotiated to a higher or lower appraisal. Mayer stated that he is not interested in negotiating, but that the appraisal accurately reflects the current value of the property. Brown voiced concern about the cash in-lieu of public land dedication. He stated that there has been considerable discussion about fair market value and noted that the language of the agreement is clear. He voiced support of the project. 16