Laserfiche WebLink
APPROVED <br /> <br />September 14, 2004 <br />History of site. <br /> <br /> <br />Review of the five special review use criteria and it is staff’s opinion that the application <br /> <br /> <br />does not meet the SRU criteria. <br />Discussed the HWY 42 Revitalization Plan and how it relates to the review of this <br /> <br /> <br />application. <br />Discussed staff’s concerns with the requested PUD amendment. <br /> <br /> <br />Review of the parking requirements and the need of the site to conform to the CDDSG <br /> <br /> <br />requirements. <br />Staff recommends denial of the proposed special review use application and PUD amendment <br />based on the discussion and details in the staff report. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Kalish: <br />Why is the project under review for SRU? <br />Martell: The expansion of the two lots requires the SRU. <br />Wood: The SRU applies to requested amendment to the PUD because of the lift system. The <br />Phase II request falls under the SRU review because of the Auto Repair Service and not a <br />commercial retail building as previously approved. <br /> <br />Kalish: <br />Clarification of working on page 2 of the staff report regarding the use of ‘operable and <br />inoperable’ cars. <br />Martell: The intent is for inoperable auto. <br /> <br />Kalish: <br />Did staff calculate the parking ratio based on the two services (auto body and <br />brake/muffler). <br />Martell: No. <br /> <br />Kalish: <br />What parking ratio has been used for other auto body shops in Louisville? <br />Martell: Louisville Municipal Code requirement is 5/1000. The CDDSG does not address auto <br />body uses. <br /> <br />McAvinew: <br />If there are violations to the original PUD conditions of approval how many <br />complaints have been filed? <br />Martell: Need to check that code enforcement. <br /> <br />McAvinew: <br />Seventy-one parking spaces seem out of line. <br />Lipton: <br />Requested to have data from the other auto body shop regarding the parking issue to give <br />Planning Commission some comparative bases for this application. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Gordon Fordyce, 1655 Cannon Circle, Louisville reviewed current parking situation and <br />referenced a handout that he provided the Planning Commission. Reason for expansion is to shift <br />into the brake/muffler service system. The parking lift system gives cleaner, efficient, <br />management tool for the cars waiting for repair. <br /> <br />Peter Stewart, Stewart Architecture, 1132 Jefferson Ave., Louisville. Gordon needs to build the <br />building to manage his business. Plan is consistent with the 1990 PUD. Discussed the following: <br />Increased the number of parking <br /> <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />