Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 14, 2016 <br />Page 18 of 19 <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />Staff recommends approval. <br />Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: <br />Pritchard says I am not in favor of making any change and see no reason to support this. <br />Moline says I am not in favor of changing this. I think zoning issues that get resolved on a <br />complaint basis works for a town like Louisville. <br />Brauneis says I am not in favor. <br />Tengler says I am not in favor the way it is currently written. <br />O'Connell says I am opposed. I think it is a situation where it leaves an adjoining neighbor the <br />opportunity to complain if someone is blocking their view. If it is not blocking their view and no <br />one cares, then let it go. <br />Rice says regardless of how I feel about sheds or jungle gyms, we have a Code and <br />theoretically, there was a rational basis for the decisions that were made when it was passed. I <br />am not hearing any compelling reason to change it. I oppose it. <br />Hsu says I am against this. As far as property rights go, a neighbor could build a 5' fence right <br />on the property line and that would block views. That might be worse than a shed because a <br />shed only blocks part of the view. One suggestion I might have is to encourage people to follow <br />the variance procedure. Maybe we can lower the rate to apply for a variance in front of the <br />Board of Adjustments for these small structures. $700 seems like a lot of money for a shed or <br />play structure. <br />Robinson says because this is a legislative item, the PC can vote to deny it. <br />Motion made by Pritchard to deny Accessory Structure Setback LMC Amendment, <br />Resolution No. 10, Series 2016. A resolution recommending approval of an ordinance <br />amending Section 17.16.030 of the Louisville Municipal Code regarding accessory uses, <br />seconded by Moline. Resolution denied by voice vote. <br />Planning Commission Comments: <br />Pritchard asks if the items tentatively scheduled for the regular meeting, May 12, 2016, are on <br />track. <br />Robinson says the McCaslin Small Area Plan will not be presented. <br />Pritchard asks when will the McCaslin Small Area Plan be presented. <br />Robinson says at the June 91" meeting. <br />Pritchard says I will not be present at the June meeting. I see three people shaking their heads <br />as well. Can Staff please send out an email notice asking about attendance for the May 1211 <br />meeting? <br />Hsu asks when the new Planning Director starts. <br />Robinson says Monday, April 25. <br />Staff Comments: <br />Trice says the ribbon cutting for our new landmarked buildings is on Saturday, May 7. All PC <br />members are welcome to attend. <br />Items Tentatively Scheduled for the regular meeting: May 12, 2016: <br />➢ Kestrel Final PUD Amendment: A request for an amendment to the existing Kestrel <br />PUD to allow for 9 additional affordable housing units. <br />• Applicant, Owner, and Representative: Boulder County Housing Authority (Norrie Boyd) <br />• Case Manager: Lauren Trice, Planner I <br />➢ 305 Arthur Final PUD: A request for a 17,940 SF single story industrial flex building <br />with associated site improvements on Lot 1 of the Business Center at CTC, Replat E. <br />• Applicant and Representative: Etkin Johnson Real Estate Partners (Liz Cox) <br />