My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 12 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 12 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 8:54:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/5/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 12 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 5, 2000 <br />Page 9. <br /> <br />agreement with surrounding properties and the area is quite tight. He noted that with the <br />setback requirement they would lose building space. Payne stated that they are bringing <br />forward a quality building. <br /> <br />Sisk asked the applicant if he is suggesting that Council grant the additional space to <br />enhance their building. Payne stated that they did not feel it was that big of an impact. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that the building is very impressive, but questioned whether this would impact <br />future applications. Sisk asked Planning Director Wood if he thought this would come <br />up again. <br /> <br />Wood stated that Staff evaluated the request according to the required front setbacks. He <br />noted that in preliminary review, Staff felt that the applicant was exceeding the setback <br />requirements for a development structure. It did not occur to them that there was an <br />attempt to maximize building square footage. Wood stated that, on a case by case basis, <br />it is possible that individuals will ask for exceptions, and Staff will try to reduce those <br />significantly through the IDDSG process. <br /> <br />Payne stated that before they had lost building space, they would have lost two or three <br />parking spaces. Payne asked Council to allow him to keep the parking spaces. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayer moved that Council approve Resolution No. 67, Series 2000, <br />seconded by Brown. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that exceptions should require more clarification in the future. He felt <br />that in this case an exception may be justified, but concurred with Councilman Sisk's <br />comments that this should not be a regular process. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that he concurred with Sisk's comments, but noted that the Planning <br />Commission unanimously approved the PUD. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that a message needs to be sent that only significant issues would detour from <br />the IDDSG guidelines. <br /> <br />VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion passed by a vote o of 5-0. Absent: <br />Howard, Levihn - excused. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.