Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />NOVEMBER 10, 2005 <br />Page 2 of 12 <br /> <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: None reported. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Wood provided the following summary: <br /> <br /> <br />A recall review of the 1990 Final PUD Amendment to Crystal Estates PUD and <br />Special Review Use (Fordyce Auto Center) under the provisions of the Louisville <br />Municipal Code, Sections 17.28.220 and 17.40.130. <br /> <br /> <br />Original PUD/SRU conditions of approval included: <br /> <br />1)No operable or wrecked vehicles shall be parked in such a manner as to <br />be visible form either adjacent public right-of-way (ROW). All <br />inoperable or wrecked vehicles shall be parked indoors or in the screened <br />impound areas. <br /> <br />2)On street parking or storage of employee or patron vehicles is prohibited. <br /> <br />3)The issuance of Phase 2 building permits shall be conditional upon <br />unqualified continuance and availability of adequate off-street parking. <br />Any additional off-street parking area acquired by lease agreement shall <br />be within 300 feet of the building. <br /> <br /> <br />The Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 11, 2005 and <br />continued the hearing to this date requesting that the applicant demonstrate <br />compliance with the above listed condition of approval. <br /> <br /> <br />The Planning Commission received a letter from Gordon Fordyce, stating that the <br />east side of the parking lot was surfaced with recycled asphalt to provide <br />additional parking. <br /> <br /> <br />Staff has not observed any dismantled vehicles parked outside the service bays <br />since the August meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />A review of the possible actions that Planning Commission could take at this <br />meeting. <br /> <br />1)Revoke a previously approved PUD if there is a failure to comply with <br />the approved development plan. The Commission could direct staff to <br />prepare a proposed set of findings of fact, conclusions and <br />recommendation for review and potential action at a later meeting. Those <br />adopted findings, conclusions and recommendations would then be <br />forwarded to City Council to be considered in a public hearing. <br /> <br />2)The Planning Commission may conclude that the conditions imposed <br />through the approval of Case #05-013-FP/UR (City Council Resolution <br />No. 35, Series 2005) are sufficient to address issues of noncompliance <br />that prompted the recall. <br /> <br />3)The Planning Commission may also determine that the applicant has <br />satisfactorily addressed issues of noncompliance and/or that the <br />Commission desires to take no further action on the recall. <br /> <br />4)The Commission may by motion conclude the recall hearing and <br />recommend that no further action be taken on the recall. If the Planning <br />Commission recommends no further action, this action will be reported to <br />City Council but no further proceedings will be scheduled unless City <br /> <br />