Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 8, 2020 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />Ritchie stated that food truck regulations in Louisville did not contemplate more <br />permanent settings for mobile food courts. She described the elements of the <br />ordinance, which included a definition of Mobile Food Court, the requirement of a <br />Special Review Use process for any future Mobile Food Court proposals, and the <br />prevention of Mobile Food Courts in Residential or Agricultural Zones. The standards for <br />Mobile Food Courts would follow the existing food truck ordinance. However, unlike <br />food trucks under that ordinance, Mobile Food Courts would not need the consent of <br />nearby restaurants. Also unlike food trucks, Mobile Food Courts would trigger an SRU <br />process which requires public notice and comment. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of staff. <br />Diehl stated that he was supportive of the amendment and asked if Item 2 could have <br />been approved without Item 1. <br />Ritchie replied that Resolution 12 could allow for a stand-alone food court with no other <br />development or it could be associated with a broader development project or business, <br />and that Resolution 13 could have been approved without this ordinance. <br />Howe asked what taxes mobile trucks paid. <br />Ritchie replied that the private property owner would pay any property tax and food <br />truck operators would paid fees to obtain a sales tax license and they would also be <br />paying sales tax. <br />Williams asked about Section 4D, Number 3, regarding courts that were adjacent to <br />residential areas. She asked if the residential areas mentioned were literally adjacent to <br />the property line or if they were included in a property with mixed use. <br />Ritchie replied that there were some properties within the city that had mixed use, but <br />the parking setback would apply no matter what. She added that "adjacent" in the Code <br />typically means across right-of-way. There is some flexibility in the language but staff <br />was intending to apply a minimum setback requirement and then the SRU process <br />would be able to review additional setbacks or changes to those requirements for a <br />specific property. <br />Brauneis asked for additional questions of staff. Seeing none, he invited public <br />comment. Seeing none, he asked for additional questions of staff. <br />Diehl asked about dark sky provisions. <br />Ritchie replied that lighting impacts were part of the criteria, but more broadly dark sky <br />regulations were better applied to the whole city. She noted that the SRU process would <br />include dark sky review. <br />Brauneis asked for commissioner comments and discussion. <br />Rice stated that he thought the SRU process was the right way to handle these things, <br />as SRUs allow for flexibility and individual consideration. He had previously been <br />