My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 08 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 08 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2020 10:36:38 AM
Creation date
11/12/2020 10:36:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/13/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 13, 2020 <br />Page 10 of 12 <br /> <br />Staff Presentation: <br />Before staff begins their presentation, Brennan verifies that this application’s public <br />notice requirements have been met. They were mailed to the surro unding property <br />owners on July 24, 2020, published in the Boulder Daily Camera on July 26, 2020, and <br />the property was posted on July 24, 2020. <br /> <br />Brennan discusses the property’s location, background history, and the applicant’s <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Brennan concludes by saying that staff finds that the proposal meets the PUD criteria <br />outlined in Section 17.28.120 of the Louisville Municipal Code and that there are no <br />additional waivers being requested. <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10, Series 2020, a resolution recommending <br />approval of an amendment to the Parbois Place Planned Unit Development to remove <br />the demolition requirement for the garage on Lot 6. <br /> <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff: <br />Diehl asks if staff has any theories of why this was a requirement. <br /> <br />Brennan says that if he had to speculate, requiring the original developer to demolish <br />the structures would perhaps make the lots more desirable or developable. The original <br />PUD identified these southern six parcels to be single family dwellings, but it did not <br />identify specific construction on those lots. He assumes that possibly having the original <br />developer be responsible for the demolition of those structures might not make the <br />future home buyer financially responsible for the demolition. <br /> <br />Howe mentions that staff said that there was an original demolition after the PUD was <br />passed. What is the liability of concern now that we are saying that they do not have to <br />demolish? <br /> <br />Brennan clarifies that there was no demolition that took place. The original subdivision <br />requirement had two demolition requirements, one for this existing garage on Lot 6 and <br />the other for the existing home on Lot 3. Both those demolitions were supposed to take <br />place within 36 months of the adoption of the PUD but neither one has occurred. <br /> <br />Williams asks if removing this means that they can choose whether or not to demolish <br />it. <br /> <br />Brennan says that is correct. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />None is heard. <br /> <br />Commissioner Questions of Applicant: <br />None is heard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.