My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 04 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2014 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 04 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
4/16/2014 10:25:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2014 04 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 13, 2014 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />Commission Action: <br />O'Connell stated she disagrees with staff's ruling on the consideration of aesthetics. <br />She stated she thinks the board should have more information, showing views from all <br />neighborhoods, to allow for her to agree with criteria #1. <br />Tengler stated he is in agreement with O'Connell based on what he saw tonight. He <br />would like to see different elevations from all 4 points. However, as much as he is <br />sympathetic to aesthetics and views, cellular traffic is getting greater and we will more <br />than likely start seeing more of this same type of application. <br />Brauneis stated he is in agreement with both Tengler and O'C• ell. <br />Pritchard stated he is concerned of the impact as well. H u s - r he agrees with Tengler <br />this is for the greater good. He recommended a motio g this matter until the <br />next meeting so we can have better photos and prop <br />Tengler seconded the motion. He added he wo <br />regarding the FCC regulations in relation to <br />e to see moreMrmation <br />and safety. <br />Motion to continue was approved via voice vo <br />Food Truck Ordinal') <br />Municipal Code to del <br />establishments and mo <br />• Applicant, Owner and Rep <br />• Case Man er: Troy Russ <br />request t. end Title 17 of the Louisville <br />trucks, food arts, and mobile retail food <br />wed o tion throughout Louisville. <br />Pritchard stated he ha <br />Tengler asked for <br />None were heard. <br />Public <br />Post <br />and <br />will be p <br />Staff Repo <br />Russ pass <br />iIding Safety <br />ith thi nd han®fr the chair duties to Tengler. <br />ity Hall, t <br />to surrounds; <br />hed at City 1 <br />Report <br />; acts and <br />passed <br />• em._4 <br />Recreation Center, the Police and Court Building <br />rope owners on February 21, 2014. Russ stated this item <br />cil. <br />es: <br />received late today. <br />Russ presented fro er Point: <br />• Currently Use Group #35 is what staff uses for outdoor food sales, which <br />requires a special review use (SRU). <br />• Staff likes the SRU process but applicants do not have assurance when they <br />apply. <br />• Staff researched other municipalities — Boulder, Longmont and Fort Collins — to <br />see what they permit for food trucks. He stated they have performance <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.