Planning Commission Minutes 2007 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MARCH 8, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Dalton also suggested that he contact Becky Hogan through the City Managers Office who could provide contact information for him. Regular Business - Items recommended for Continuance '" Resolution No. 30, Series 2006, Affordable Housing / Inclusionary Zoning - A resolution recommending approval of an ordinance enacting Chapter 17.30 of the Louisville Municipal Code regarding Affordable Housing / Inclusionary Zoning. (Continued from November 9,2006, January 11, 2007, February 8,2007.) . Applicant, Representative and Owner: City of Louisville Case Manager: Paul Wood, Planning Director Dalton moved and Pritchard seconded a motion to continue Resolution No. 30, Series 2006 to the May 10, 2007 public hearing. Motion passed by voice vote. Regular Business - Public Hearing Items '" Resolution No. 06, Series 2007, Gateway Subdivision PUD date expiration extension - a resolution renewing a PUD timeline for the Gateway Estates PUD Development Plan. . Applicant and Representative: Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., Allison C. Ulmer . Owner: Omni Financial Services, Inc. Donald S. Oberfeld . Case Manager: Sean McCartney, Principal Planner Public Notice Certification: Published in the Daily Camera on February 18, 2007 and posted in City Hall, Louisville Public Library, Recreation Center, the Courts and Police Building, and the City's website on February 16,2007. The notice was mailed to surrounding property owners and the property was posted on February 16, 2007. Conflict ofInterest and Disclosure: None heard. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: McCartney reviewed the project with the following points: . The request is for an extension of36 months to the final PUD development plan for Lots 1-9, Gateway Subdivision at the southeast comer of South Boulder Road and South McCaslin Boulevard. . The reason for the request is to allow for the development of the 9 residential lots. . The applicant does not wish to modify any of the original elements of the PUD development plan. McCartney noted that staff recommends approval of the 36 month extension for the Final PUD Development Plan as presented. Applicant Presentation: Larry Keefer representing the applicant stated the application is for the extension of the timeline only and no request for modifications to the final PUD development plan. Members of the Public: Steven Reed, 949 W. Willow St. inquired if there is an automatic expiration or can a project lie dormant forever. Wood stated a project that has no movement / activity for 36 months after approval must then come forward with a request for a new timeline. The timeline on a PUD is the only item that expires. The underlying zoning and subdivision stay active.