My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 02 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 02 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:30:39 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:25:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/11/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />February 11, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />later. She described that the agreement was recorded on the property and ran with the <br />land. She noted that the phasing plan was part of the obligations of the property and <br />would be captured in an official manner. <br />Howe asked about the setbacks. <br />Ritchie replied that Council had previously adopted the 55-foot building setback but <br />allowed the 30-foot parking setback, which was carried through in this application. The <br />drive aisle extended very slightly but the intent was to keep the parking outside of that <br />30-foot setback and staff therefore found that the proposal complied with the setback <br />requirements. <br />Howe clarified that the building was set back 55 feet. <br />Ritchie replied that the canopy was set back 55 feet and the building was further back. <br />Howe asked about the expected tenants for Lost 3 and 4. <br />Ritchie punted the question to the applicant and stated that the setbacks applied to all of <br />the lots fronting 96th Street. <br />Williams asked if Lots 3 and 4 were included in the phasing plans. <br />Ritchie replied that the lots would require additional PUDs as the development <br />continued. This PUD would capture construction around Lots 2 and 3 but would not <br />address anything developed inside either lot. <br />Williams asked for confirmation that it was part of the Plat but not part of the PUD. <br />Ritchie confirmed. <br />Alicia Rhymer of United Properties stated that Megan Turner would share the <br />presentation and that Jim Candy would speak first. <br />Jim Candy, representing Ascent Church at 550 South McCaslin Boulevard in Louisville, <br />shared that he had worked on this project for several years and that coordinating among <br />different owners had taken a lot of time. He stated that no one owner was able to come <br />in and make the full development costs. He shared that there had been challenges with <br />the lots and sizes for the application and the public land dedication piece. He noted that <br />there was an infrastructure burden with this project and the Council and the <br />Commission had previously seen the wisdom in allowing it to be a phased project. He <br />thanked staff and the Commission for their work and stated that the current proposal <br />was a stronger application based on feedback from the review process last year. <br />Rhymer described the two phases of development, noting that the first phase under <br />consideration today included the 7-Eleven convenience store and the industrial building. <br />She stated that one lot was under contract with a car wash and the other was being <br />actively marketed. She shared that phase 2 was being worked on currently. Phase 1 <br />included benefits to the City included 96th Street improvements, 3.105 acres of land on <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.