Laserfiche WebLink
Trementozzi stated that it would be evergreen and deciduous, with the intent being that the wall <br />blocks head lights from the drive-thru. He wanted the deciduous growth to be very dense in the <br />screening. <br /> <br />He asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. <br /> <br />Martin stated that there would be an executed common area agreement and the owner of Lot 2 will <br />be responsible for all of the common area maintenance for both Lots 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Lathrop liked the project and did not mind if the two buildings went up simultaneously. <br /> <br />Keany was concerned about open neon even if it is covered with clear plexiglass. He wanted an <br />opaque material. He wanted it incorporated into this PUD that any phase construction and all overlot <br />grading would be completed and leveled during the initial land movement and would be reseeded with <br />native grasses until such time as the project is completed. <br /> <br />Sisk did not agree with the appraisal of the property which stated that commercial property in <br />Louisville is worth $4.50/s.f. He found it to be completely unreasonable. He did not like the comps <br />used in the appraisal and felt, if this appraisal were accepted, it would cost the citizens of Louisville <br />at least $100,000. He was outraged by this appraisal. He pointed out that the property next door <br />sold for $10/s.f. He stated that the comps being used were from property sold three years ago and <br />they were not even the same zoning. Additionally, concerning the berming and landscaping on <br />McCaslin, he did not want any light filtering off of vehicular traffic onto McCaslin. If there is, he <br />wanted remedial action taken. On phasing, he suggested a time period for the completion of the first <br />phase, say within a year or the PUD would have to be resubmitted. <br /> <br />Martin stated that the appraisal is based on raw land. The appraisal was as the property stands today, <br />not according to the improved value of the property. <br /> <br />Davidson thought Council should delete condition No. 4. On condition No. 2, delete "...of <br />$106,800..." and in its place add "...approved by the City Administrator...". <br /> <br />Mayer asked, concerning the north/south secondary access, that the landscaping improvements <br />directly abutting that road be completed within a year of issuing the C.O. to Boston Market. <br /> <br />Howard moved that Council approve Resolution No. 41, Series 1997, Final Subdivision Plat and <br />PUD Development Plan for Century Retail Center, with the following amendments: That condition <br />No. 2 be changed, deleting "...of $106,800..." and in its place add "...as negotiated with the City <br />Administrator..." and to strike condition No. 4, seconded by Levihn. <br /> <br />Mayer offered a friendly amendment that the landscaping improvements for the road that directly <br />connects with the abutting parcel used for the secondary access be completed within 18 months of <br />C.O. of the first building constructed on site. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />