Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 8, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />concerned about setbacks for residential adjacency and restrooms, but those concerns <br />had been addressed. He added that mobile food courts were very different in character <br />from trucks that park on the street, as street vendors do not pay rent or property taxes, <br />whereas mobile food court owners and operators would. He did not view these courts <br />as unfair competition to existing restaurants. <br />Brauneis added that there was a concern from the public that the employees were not <br />local. He noted that there were a lot of employees in restaurants who were not residents <br />of Louisville. <br />Diehl supported the ordinance and thought that it showed that the City was interested in <br />entrepreneurship. He noted that the courts could be a net positive by bringing more <br />people into the city to eat. He voiced a concern that people could put up a mobile food <br />court on an empty lot which would be less of an investment in the city tax -wise. <br />Howe asked his fellow commissioners if they were comfortable getting rid of the food - <br />truck -related requirement of gaining approval from nearby restaurants. <br />Brauneis replied that competition of two or more locations with similar fare could happen <br />to any restaurant, which was not a matter of code. <br />Moline appreciated that competition -related concerns and conflicts could be addressed <br />in SRU hearings. <br />Rice added that exclusivity in property law was usually handled by covenant and up to <br />the private property owners, meaning that it was not a proper mission for the <br />Commission to decide. <br />Williams stated that this type of business would be a compliment to the nearby <br />restaurants since mobile food courts promote mixing and matching of different types of <br />food and drink. Her biggest concern was the residential adjacency but she felt good that <br />the SRU process would allow reviewing each proposal. <br />Moline commented that the SRU process was a robust one and included consideration <br />of potential impacts. <br />Brauneis stated that he was in support of the proposal <br />Rice made a motion for approval of Resolution 12, Series 2020. Williams seconded. <br />Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. <br />511 E. South Boulder Rd (The Rose and Raven) PUD, SRU, Plat and Easement <br />Vacation: A request for a Planned Unit Development, a Special Review Use, a Plat and <br />an Easement Vacation to allow construction of a 14,000 sf building and Mobile Food <br />Court (Resolution 13, Series 2020). Continued from September 10, 2020. <br />o Applicant: Caddis Collective <br />o Case Manager: Lisa Ritchie, Senior Planner <br />