City Council Minutes 2000 07 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting July 5, 2000 Page 15 Mayer questioned if the building would be modified and if precautions would be in place to control airborne contaminates and other hazards. Paul Pennock, Architect for the project, stated that a HVAC system is planned for the project, therefore there would be building modifications and controls installed if necessary. Mayer questioned modifying the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance and asked clarification for from the City Attorney. City Attorney Light stated that Council could choose to make a new area available within the City for sexually oriented business or could change the distance requirements. He noted that the City is not obligated to make such spaces available. Light stated that this would have to be reviewed if the SRU was approved. Sisk asked Goodman about the Police Department's commitments to resource officers for the Peak to Peak school. Goodman stated that there are three resource officers who would divide their time among all the schools including Peak to Peak. He stated that it would be a challenge for the Police Department, but Peak to Peak would receive equal time from resource officers. Goodman stated that although only Phase I is being considered, he has concerns with Phase II and the number students driving. He noted that the biggest challenge at Monarch has been the traffic. Sisk asked about the pedestrian and tractor-trailer traffic. Goodman stated that given the information he had received, he did not see a problem if the children are kept on site. Sisk asked Light about the City's liability in approving a plan with such a mixed use of traffic on Boxelder Street. Light stated the decision should be based on whether the use meets the safety criteria. The decision should nOt hang on the potential court liability being created. Sisk asked Planning Director Wood if a school is in existence in an industrial park and a company wanted to locate next to it, would there be a recommendation of denial based on the type of business and its appropriateness to the school. Wood stated that a school is not a predominate use in an industrial park, however its not an excluded use, therefore, an analysis would have to be made based on the criteria. Sisk asked Mr. Drummond, with respect to the compatibility issue and the good neighbor policy, how he responds to neighbors who have stated they are at risk of losing property value and to the neighbors who have voiced concern for the safety of the children. Drummond stated that it is a very emotional issue, but the zoning states a school use can apply in this park, and if that was not correct, the zoning should be rewritten. Drummond stated that the zoning is a legal document and the process can be accessed by anyone. 15