Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 09 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 9, 2018 Page 11 of 12 Hsu stated that the weakest argument pertains to number four on the modification request stating that there were no reasonable design alternatives. He asked the applicant to talk about the design alternatives in addition to the financial ones already discussed. Candy stated that the City did not want the land. Hsu clarified that he was thinking of design as a more structural question. Dean stated that Ascent was open to public access to the playground area, but Parks was not interested in acquiring another park to maintain. These properties were not on the priority list for City acquisition for the parks department. Brauneis asked for public comment. Amanda Fox, 384 Jackson Circle in Louisville and speaking on behalf of several members of the public in attendance at the meeting, stated that the church served needs in the community, including programs in the police department. She also described how the church has been involved in Louisville schools, particularly for after - school programs. Moline moved to enter the materials board into the record. Motion passes unanimously. Williams asked what the shiny metal on the board was being used for. A member of the public showed that it was decorative parts of the roof, not the entire roof. Brauneis asked for commissioner comments. Rice stated that he was enthusiastic about this application similar to his feeling on the first hearing in the fall of 2017. He liked the orientation of the building. He thanked the applicant for making a big investment in the community. Moline supported the application. He was happy with the staff perspective in general on the application. He supported the option that was consistent with the Open Space Board's review and recommendation. Hsu appreciated the risk and investment of the application. He did not think that the application had satisfied number four in the subdivision modification request since he thought there could be additional design alternatives. Williams stated that the subdivision modification request had been met as she could not think of any reasonable alternatives to the request. She concluded that she was inclined to support the application. Rice responded to Hsu's concerns, pointing out that the preamble language read, "all the following requirements insofar as applicable." He stated that the design question was not applicable to this situation since the issue did not have design elements to it.