Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />APRIL 20 2006 <br />Page 10 of 17 <br /> <br />to the terms and conditions of the original Clementine Subdivision Agreement. <br />The agreement shall address those obligations as carried forward from the <br />Clementine Subdivision Agreement to include the payment of the public use cash- <br />in-lieu fee, conveyance of additional right-of-way as well as access and utility <br />easements, and public improvements. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff: None <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Rex Olson, 700 Front St., Louisville, stated that he represents the owner of Lot 1 only. He made <br />the following four points: <br />1) Requested that the Subdivision agreement be addressed for Lot 1 only and that any <br />necessary amendments to the Subdivision Agreement be made with the two individual <br />properties instead of treating as one unit. <br />2) The cash-in-lieu agreement creates a financial burden for the owner and therefore is <br />requesting that the fee be based on the value of the property at the time of the original <br />platting (1987) and not current market value. <br />3) The applicant is requesting that the improvement dedication be waived until the actual <br />submittal and review of a PUD. <br />4) The applicant has been asked by several people 'why are you subdividing without a <br />PUD'. As it currently stands the group home carries all of the financial responsibility for <br />the large lot and by subdividing it allows the group home to have a more equally <br />proportionate share of the burden. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Lipton asked what is the applicant's objection to including the owner of Lot 2. <br /> <br />Wood stated that bringing a 3rd party into this could create the ability by that party to block any <br />new subdivision agreement. At some time the Lot 2 property owner will probably come forward <br />with their own rezoning or re-development plan. As property is subdivided the property owner <br />needs to understand the obligations associated with a subdivision agreement. <br /> <br />Dalton stated that it is not clear to him as to why the Commission should not take action on this <br />request, then, when the owner of Lot 2 comes forward with an application the Commission <br />would take the same action with that property owner as the Commission would with this owner. <br /> <br />Lipton asked if there is a downside or risk to the City to do it that way. <br /> <br />Wood stated that with a new subdivision agreement it sets out what the obligations are for each <br />property owner. It would be a cleaner process to bring them forward at the same time. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that he does not understand what the problem would be to have Lot 1 and Lot 2 <br />property owners working together on one common subdivision agreement. He requested that the <br />applicant step forward to explain. <br /> <br />Olson stated that if the owner of Lot 1 and the city come to an agreement when the owner of Lot <br />2 has the ability to say no to any of the terms and then Olson and the owner of Lot 1 have wasted <br />there time. <br /> <br />Deborski asked for a clarification as to whether the City gives up anything by separating the two <br />lots. <br />