Planning Commission Minutes 2004 06 08

Home Browse Search

APPROVED September 14, 2004 Wood: Explained further that a GDP serves as a type of master plan for future development in a PCZD. Lipton: Advised the other Commissioners that they need to be cautious with the detail in the GDP because a GDP essentially gives the owners a use by right for development based on the GDP. Wood: Stated that an agreement will be in its final form before going to City Council that details the permitted use groups. Commissioners and Staff must be comfortable with the permitted uses. One area of concern is the broad nature in which trade and service uses are defined. Lipton: Requested clarification of the zoning criteria and whether all criteria have to be met before a zoning can be changed. Wood: Referenced the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) Section 17.44.050 and the fact it does not require a minimum number of the criteria being met before the zoning can be changed. McDermott: Requested information regarding the use group of Senior Housing and Nursing Home and Rest Home. He also suggested the more current terminology of Long-term Care Facility and Assisted Living be used. Wood: Stated that is a question that the applicant would need to clarify. Applicant Presentation: Brian Rick, 1995 Clipper Dr., Lafayette represents the three applicants / owners. Addressed the question regarding the use groups. The LMC was used as a guideline in preparation of the proposed permitted use groups. The applicants are willing to detail with the Planning Commission or Staff the specific details of the use groups in the Development Agreement. The applicant also supports the four conditions as presented by staff. He continued with a discussion of the re-zoning criteria. The key element of the application is the language in the three annexation agreements: “Re-zoning is anticipated …” Based on the current Comprehensive Plan and the annexation agreements the request for re-zoning is appropriate. Alex Ariniello, LSC Transportation Consultants, 1889 York St., Denver reviewed the current th construction that is happening at S. 96 St. and Dillon Rd. Also provided clarification of the LOS for 2004 and 2010 with the completion of the new intersection: 2004 LOS will go from ‘C’ to ‘B’, and 2010 will remain at ‘C’ which is still considered a good level of service. He continued with a discussion of the full turn movement vs. the ¾ turn movement on Dillon Rd. Lipton: Expressed concern that the traffic study does not include any StorageTek (STK) data. McDermott: Stated that the STK influence will come later. The traffic will not change at the intersection in 2025 because of this site but because of the other areas or sites such as STK. Deborski: Expressed concerns with the full turn movement at Dillon Rd and would a signal be appropriate at this location. Ariniello: The parcel is not large enough to support a signal. Rick continued with a history of the application and requested Commission approval of the application. 3