Laserfiche WebLink
and recommendations are all part of the record at Planning Commission, which were part of Council's <br />packets, for a "clear track." <br /> <br />Lathrop wondered if the applicant had complied with all of the technical requirements of staff and <br />various departments. <br /> <br />Wood stated that they had complied with the technical comments from the July memos. A letter <br />dated July in the applicant's packet indicated that they had achieved a full 20' minimum separation <br />between the buildings. That still had not been addressed on the revised plans. <br /> <br />Mayer wondered if, as stated in the 1989 agreement, the owner had provided copies of the said <br />master plan in all real estate sales offices located within the City of Louisville. He read Section 6 of <br />the impact statement under staging, paragraph 3, and wondered what in the December 1985 <br />agreement changed the provision of the original annexation agreement. <br /> <br />Jon Kottke, attorney for McStain, stated that the specific provision would be paragraph 2, as it relates <br />to residential units, that any required public improvements would be specified within subdivision <br />agreements. There was no reference to PUD's within that, but they did make a specific reference to <br />the PUD, as it related to the commercial portion. <br /> <br />Mayer felt Mr. Kottke might be misunderstanding the difference between subdivision approval and <br />a subdivision agreement. <br /> <br />Kottke: <br /> <br />This agreement, itself, is the equivalent of a PUD. <br />This agreement doesn't require subsequent PUD's for <br />residential development. This agreement says what <br />we're going to do. As it relates to the specific details <br />in terms of setbacks, and other kinds of things, and <br />infrastructure improvements, regarding a separate <br />parcel, that's going to be set for in a subdivision <br />agreement. It specifically calls out that requirement <br />for commercial. <br /> <br />Mayer wondered if it wasn't true that every time a use in the Homart PCZD plan had been approved, <br />the zoning map had been updated. <br /> <br />Wood stated that every use did not trigger an amendment to the zoning map, only in the case where <br />they have done land trades. He explained that there have been points where the General Development <br />Plan had been amended, which triggered a change to the zoning map. As they have considered <br />individual parcels, in all cases it had not triggered a zoning amendment. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br /> <br />