Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plan, Highway 42 Revitalization Area and the North Louisville General Development Plan with <br />secondary topics covering possible amendments to the CDDSG and the IDDSG regarding <br />Signage, and Landscape requirements as well as possible amendments to the Louisville Municipal <br />Code regarding signs, fences and decks or porches. Staff reported that the direction of the City <br />Council was to proceed with the South Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 42 <br />Revitalization Area. <br /> <br />Numerous questions were raised by the Commissioners. <br /> <br />Lipton inquired about a thorough update to the Comprehensive Plan and not just addressing <br />subareas. <br /> <br />Johnstone explained that with the City being close to the point of build-out that the concept of <br />Subarea Plans could address the specific areas that still need the attention of a Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />Kalish expressed that now could be a good time for the Commission to work on several of the <br />topics discussed at the Study Session. She requested that the Staff lead the Commissioners <br />through the process of developing a plan. <br /> <br />Other discussion topics: <br /> <br /> <br />Potential Development Code Amendment: Decks, Porches and Rear Yard Setbacks – <br /> <br />Discussion, Jeffery Martell, Planner II <br /> <br />Jeffery Martell, Planner II reviewed the Memorandum regarding the potential development code <br />amendment for decks, porches, and rear yard setbacks. The memo was prepared because of <br />recent application to the City from the Meadows at Coal Creek Homeowners’ Association. The <br />request is to amend the setback requirements to allow for a rear year setback encroachment for <br />covered decks. <br /> <br />Martell reviewed and discussed the definition of structure and how it relates to decks and porches. <br />He review also included information from other communities (Superior, Broomfield, and <br />Lafayette) and how they address the rear setback in relation to decks, porches that are above 30” <br />in height. He requested comments from the Commission regarding the possibility of proceeding <br />with a citywide zoning code amendment instead of a PUD only amendment. <br /> <br />Robson asked if the other subdivisions have expressed the same concerns. <br />Martell replies that the staff field similar questions all the time and that it is not unique to Meadow <br />at Coal Creek. <br /> <br />Pritchard asked if staff had considered the repercussions from other subdivisions. <br />Martell stated that is the very reason we are asking for the Commission input and direction on <br />how to more forward – either on a case-by-case basis or on a citywide code amendment. <br /> <br />McDermott requested clarification of why the 30” height requirement. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />