Planning Commission Minutes 2007 07 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JULY 12, 2007 Page 2 of 13 Staff noted the agenda had been continued from previous meetings. The notice was posted in City Hall, Recreation Center, Library, and the Police and Courts Building. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: McCartney reviewed the staff memo dated July 12, 2007 and the three (3) documents for the Highway 42 Zoning and Design Standards. He requested a motion to enter into public record the two (2) letters: one from Elizabeth Law-Evans, Boom LLC and one from the Deborski Family. McA vinew moved and Loo seconded a motion to enter those items into public record. Motion passed by voice vote. Pritchard requested permission of the Commission to allow for public comment prior to their action on the agenda item. All Commissioners indicated approval. Members of the Public: Elizabeth Law-Evans, Boom LLC, property owner within the HWY 42 area summarized her letter stating support of the revitalization. She continued with a discussion of the leasing of space and the fact there have been times when a space has been empty for 1 1Iz years. She requested the Commission re-consider the limitation of expansion within the area. Scott Deborski, 565 Lafarge, reminded the Commission that his family owns two (2) businesses with the HWY 42 area. He reviewed the letter from the family stating the hardship to any industrial use that would be created by the Commission with the passing of the limitation of expanSIOn. Rob Lathrop, vice-chair of the Louisville Revitalization Commission (LRC) reviewed the role of the LRC and the fact they do not make recommendations regarding zoning or design standards or guidelines as they are the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Staff Commission and LRC discussion: Sheets inquired of staff to explain the limitation. McCartney stated the proposed limitation language is for a 25% change. Sheets asked what the process for a business to expand is. McCartney stated it would be through a PUD. Sheets asked then - what are we changing. McCartney stated the change is in the permitted uses and a business would have to be a permitted use either by right or special review. Dalton asked what does the 25% limitation really mean and what limits does a property owner currently face when considering an expansion. McCartney stated the 25% limitation would be based on the current market value at time of application and is not based on overall physical size of the property. One limitation a property faces for expansion is parking. Dalton asked why the percentage is based on market value and not land area. McA vinew stated the recommendation came from other design guidelines. McCartney inquired of the commission - what do you think would be better - market value or land area.