My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1999 11 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1999 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1999 11 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 3:17:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 1999 11 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />approval. <br /> <br />Motion made by Commissioner Lipton to approve Resolution No. 54, Series 1999. Seconded by <br />Commissioner Pritchard. <br /> <br />Mr. Maddox stated that this is difficult for the applicant at this time. They will have to sell the lot and <br />go someplace else. They have worked hard and spent a lot of money to get to this point. If it is no <br />they will have to take their business elsewhere. Airborne Express needs roll-up doors, truck wells and <br />an office warehouse. <br /> <br />Mr. Lipton would like to see some building architecture treatment on this building. If in fact Airborne <br />Express feels that it is not worth pursuing then they should look for another place. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnstone agrees that it is not up to the current architectural standard in the CTC either, and also <br />does not feel that if they put a condition on that the applicant will go any further. It was Staff’s <br />recommendation for many different site impacts and architectural treatments which the applicant did <br />not agree to. Mr. Johnstone wanted to make it clear that the applicant is not really going to go any <br />further in any significant way. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> Jeff Lipton, No; Patricia Thompson, No; Betty Solek, No; Chris Pritchard, No; Tom <br />fails <br />McAvinew, No; Bill Boulet, No. Motion 6:0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />D.Resolution No. 55, Series 1999, Ordinance No. 1313, Series 1999 – An Ordinance <br />Amending Title 17 of the LMC and Adopting a New Chapter (17.54) Concerning <br />Statutory Vested Property Rights. <br /> <br />Staff Public Notice Certification: <br /> <br />Paul Wood, Planning Director, certified that public notice was published in the Daily Camera on <br />October 31, 1999, posted in City. <br /> <br />Staff Report: <br /> <br />Mr. Wood stated that Resolution No. 55 comes to the Commission for the purpose of forwarding a <br />recommendation on an Amendment to the Louisville Municipal Code related to a corresponding event <br />in the State Legislature this year, which is related to a passage of a statutory vested rights law. Mr. <br />Wood described the Ordinance as stated in the Staff report. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Lipton inquired as to the issue of vesting under an SRU, does that restrict the Commissions ability to <br />call up an SRU if they are in violation of some condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Wood stated that would not preempt the reconsideration of Special Use or a PUD. <br /> <br /> 9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.