Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 8, 2011 <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />Light stated the use of the word “minor” is open for discussionand perhaps it needs a <br />definition. He asked the Commissionersto be mindful of the appeal process and the <br />requirement of the “burden of proof” would lie on the City. <br />Lipton asked why does this City need to make these amendments. <br />Light stated the staff does not currently have guidelines to follow, they do not have a <br />process. <br />Brauneis asked for clarification of the use of the words “minor modifications”. <br />Light read the wording suggested within the amendment. <br />Brauneis then ask what would be a “major modification”. <br />Light stated the amendment would only allow “minormodification” such a occupancy. <br />It would not include a group home situation as there are already regulations in place <br />for a group home. <br />Russell asked if the amendment would allow a use not already allowed. <br />Light stated it might. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion: <br />O’Connell stated her concern with the use of the word “minor” and the lack of an <br />appeal process. She stated she is not convinced the amendment is what is needed. <br />Brauneis stated the amendment makes sense to himand he supports the adoption of <br />the amendment. <br />Pritchard stated his agreement with Brauneis and the need to implement the process. <br />Lipton stated the process needs to be better defined/outlined. He feels there is <br />limited history to guide the Planning Commission and staff on how to proceed. He <br />would supporta reporting process on any request either approved or denied by the <br />City Manager. He would also support an appeal process. <br />Sheets stated her agreement with Lipton’s comments. She stated she had not heard <br />anyevidence that the City of Louisville has a problem because we have not adopted <br />the amendments. <br />Russell stated the City needs a process but probably not this proposed process. He <br />is not prepared to support the amendment <br />Brauneis stated the City does need a process because of the exposed liability we <br />currently have. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Lipton moved and Brauneis seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 27, Series <br />2011 as presented. <br />Name Vote <br />Jeff LiptonYes <br />Chris PritchardYes <br />Ann O’ConnellNo <br />Monica Sheets No <br /> <br />