My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 05 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 05 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
1/30/2004 11:24:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/2/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 05 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />May 2, 2000 <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />Mayer asked Wood for clarification of the parking issue raised by the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the reduced parking was a friendly amendment during the motion <br />process of the Planning Commission Resolution. Wood noted that the amendment was <br />not Staff initiated. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Wood about the request for additional landscaping which would slightly <br />reduce the parking. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the request made was for the addition of that two ornamental trees to be <br />in compliance with the special entry requirements of the overall PUD and for both sides <br />of the entry to be landscaped in a symmetrical fashion. <br /> <br />Armstrong stated that they have agreed to the addition of two ornamental trees. <br /> <br />Mayer commented that he did not have a problem with dropping the Planning <br />Commission condition to reduce parking. <br /> <br />Levihn stated that he was pleased with the development, and that the applicant has met <br />and complied with all the standards. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that with regard to parking ratios, he generally is in favor of more restrictive <br />parking, however, he acknowledged that the applicant has proved the validity of the <br />parking needs. Sisk voiced his concern of the visual impact from Highway 36. He <br />suggested that the issue could be addressed by landscaping the southern portion of the <br />property to mitigate any view of asphalt. He felt that the addition of trees and landscaping <br />would help the overall appeal of the project. <br /> <br />Armstrong noted that the proposed setback is to 40', when only 35' is required. He stated <br />that more trees and landscaping could be added along the southern property line and that <br />any additional landscaping, at the expense of parking spaces, would not be an issue. <br /> <br />Ellermann stated that they have planned for no more than 9 cars in a row. He suggested <br />that they could add, there will be no more than 9 cars in a row along the perimeter. <br />Additionally, they could add to the number of trees along the perimeter of the south and <br />southwest property line. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.