My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2007 06 28
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2007 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2007 06 28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:17 AM
Creation date
9/20/2007 3:08:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2007 06 28
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JUNE 28, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br />Lipton also noted it would require a PUD. <br /> <br />Sheets asked if the City is limiting or setting a taking of property. <br /> <br />Wood stated the City will not do a map re-zoning. The land owner must request a zoning change. <br />The intent of the limitation is no new industrial use of the property or no expansion of an <br />industrial use. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that some industrial uses should not be expanded. The Commission should review <br />each application using the SRU criteria. <br /> <br />Dalton requested a review of the SRU criteria. <br /> <br />McCartney read the SRU criteria from the Louisville Municipal Code. <br /> <br />Hartman stated she would support a 25% maximum expansion with an SRU <br /> <br />Wood stated a review would also require a review by staff and commission of the project with <br />the IDDSG. <br /> <br />Loo and Dalton stated they like Lipton's suggestion of the 25% expansion with SRU <br /> <br />Lipton referenced Option A, on the memo from staff, regarding the 25% substantial alteration. <br /> <br />Dalton requested a discussion of Option B from the memo. <br /> <br />Wood stated that Option B would require a modification to the use table. <br /> <br />Lipton asked if Option A does not require that modification. <br /> <br />Wood stated that Option A does not require that modification. <br /> <br />Lipton and Wood discussed the mixed use design standards regarding parking requirements and <br />the transit facility. <br /> <br />Wood recommended the minimum parking requirements for the 2-bedroom units be increased <br />from 1 space per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit and the 3-bedroom units be increased from 1.75 <br />spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit. <br /> <br />Lipton asked what parking ratio is used for apartment complexes. <br /> <br />Wood stated the ratio is 2 spaces per unit. <br /> <br />Loo asked if the apartment complexes have a standard for the number of guest parking spaces. <br /> <br />Wood stated they do not. <br /> <br />Dalton stated the commission should consider a recommendation of 2 spaces per unit no matter <br />the size. <br /> <br />McCartney reminded the commission that of the 25 acres available in the area that 7 acres will <br />be surface parking associated with the FasTracks. <br /> <br />Wood and Dalton discussed the Energy Conservation and Build Green Programs. Wood stated <br />that the majority of the big developers already belong to a Build Green Program. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br />John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, discussed the intent of the Open Government requirement and making <br />available documents that will be presented. He stated the document should also be reproduced <br />for pick-up and not just posting. His discussion included the following: expansion with Industrial <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.