Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 09, 2020 <br />Page 11 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />Gregory Jones, 1809 Sweet Clover Lane <br /> <br />Jones says that he does not understand why the business should be placed where it <br />will be facing the residents versus having it face Hecla Way. It does not seem <br />appropriate to have this type of use near residential property. He thinks that they are <br />having an empty lot next to them in order to build a second building there, which he <br />would also have an issue with. <br /> <br />Scott McElroy, 1873 Sweet Clover Lane <br /> <br />McElroy says the biggest problem is the insistence on placing this on the southwest <br />corner on the lot. Originally, the applicant was suggested to build two buildings on the <br />lot, one to the east of the current building. The additional parking and the location of the <br />building seems to be aimed preserving that right for another building on the lot at some <br />time in the future. The result being that the parking and wall will be very intrusive. The <br />wall is a problem to the north. This lot and where the wall will be is highly visible from <br />Hecla Lake. <br /> <br />Leslie Jones, 1809 Sweet Clover Lane <br /> <br />Jones says the location of the building is out of place and out of character of Louisville. <br />It does not provide the appropriate separation between the residential and commercial <br />space. Families will be able to see the sign, building, and cars. She thinks this location <br />in relation to its proximity to residential is inappropriate and asks that the commissioners <br />deny this request. She the mentions that if this request is approved, that the <br />commissioners add a condition that would provide an appropriate barrier between the <br />commercial and residential space, such as a wall and trees. <br /> <br />Closing Statement by Staff: <br />Brennan clarifies that the entrance to the building is facing west towards the shared <br />drive in between Napa and the proposed drive. In addition, regarding the North End <br />GDP, to give extra background/context to that, it was originally created in 2006. The <br />areas directly adjacent to this particular property were actually identified as commercial <br />and mixed-use development, not single family. <br /> <br />Williams mentions that she tried to find language in the Louisville Municipal Code for a <br />buffer between a marijuana facility and residential property. When the commissioners <br />assessed this particular ordinance for marijuana in 2019, there was no buffer between <br />marijuana and residential, but there was language added to have a buffer for parks and <br />schools. For this proposal though, it has been discussed of this 30 feet buffer. Where in <br />the municipal code does it mention this need? <br /> <br />Brennan says that that particular prevision is in the commercial design guidelines and <br />standards. They are not specific to retail marijuana. This is specific to just when a <br />commercial is abutting residential property. <br /> <br />Zuccaro confirms that there is no buffer between retail marijuana and residential that <br />was adopted in the final ordinance.