Planning Commission Minutes 2006 05 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11 , 2006 Page 8 of 12 Wood stated that it was the first that he was aware of for the City. Lipton requested a review of what surrounds the property. Wood reviewed the area as it is currently developed. Lipton requested clarification of the entrance to the site and he discussed the conditions of Cannon Street and not wanting to create any burden for the City to have to provide street improvements prior to the re-development of the entire area. Wood noted the location of the entrance and that the Louisville Fire Protection District has identified a second entrance location. Applicant Presentation: Pat Irwin, Boulder, Trustee of the PDI Trust, provided the following review points: . History of the property. . Relationship of the property to the HWY 42 Revitalization Area and FasTracks. . Project would provide local, affordable storage for RV and Boats. . Also a good interim use of the property. Commission Questions of Applicant: Lipton inquired if there had been any public comment. Wood and Irwin both stated they had not had received any comments. Dalton requested if the proposed agreement would provide the property owner the ability to sell the property at any time. Irwin stated that is the reason for the 5-year term and options for renewal. Members of the Public: Michael Palone, 1443 Cannon St. expressed concerns with the number of relief s that the applicant is request. As a property owner he is required to meet all building requirements and he would request the same for other property owners. He also discussed the condition of both Cannon and Griffith Streets and the potential increase of traffic for both of the streets. Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: Lipton requested a motion to enter into record the letter from Scott Deborski. Pritchard moved and Loo seconded a motion. Motion passed by voice vote. Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: McAvinew stated that he would need more direction from the City before supporting the project. The direction would need to include the proposed agreement between the City and the Property Owner. Loo stated that she does not feel that it meets the City standards especially when there is there is the request for so many reliefs from Municipal Codes and Design Standards. Lipton stated that he see a difference with the use based on the temporary nature of the use and the daily management of the site. Dalton stated that he favors the project, it is a reasonable use of the property and the property is currently undeveloped and the use would require minimal improvements for the proposed use.