Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Staff Certification/Planning Commission Disclosures: <br /> <br />Notice was published in the Louisville Times on December 26, 1998, and was posted in City Hall <br />and mailed to surrounding property owners on December 23, 1998. All Commissioners were <br />either familiar with the property or had made a site visit. <br /> <br />Staff Report and Facts and Issues: <br /> <br />Staff gave a brief overview of the project. The biggest problem has to do with landscaping <br />coverage requirement and the railroad easement. Staff recommends that the landscaping be <br />brought into line, not including the easement. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Applicant’s Presentation: <br /> <br />Dennis Payne, of DP Construction, representing the Mills Family Trust, stated that there is no <br />problem with Conditions 1 - 4, and none with 7 - 12. Materials were distributed for the <br />Commission to review. Mr. Payne feels that Condition #5 and #6 conflict with each other. The <br />railroad easement is going away, and so the question is what to do with the easement. Trails have <br />been proposed. The Applicant is prepared to commit to pay for their portion of the easement <br />development, when the railroad goes away. Mr. Lipton asked Staff what the history is regarding <br />the easement. The City will probably need the easement for utilities. If the easement is vacated, <br />and it becomes a utility easement, the Applicant’s landscape plan would be fine. Mr. Lipton asked <br />if they could craft a condition that would approve the Applicant’s landscape proposal, in the event <br />that the railroad easement goes away, and that the Applicant would have to make up the <br />landscaping coverage requirements if it does not? Yes, but meeting the landscape conditions if <br />the easement was not vacated might be difficult. Mr. Lipton also asked why the Applicant is <br />being asked to pay for the bike trail? It is not a City expense, and the City would need to approve <br />a trail connection. Further discussion ensued regarding the possible fate of the easement and how <br />the City might decide to use the land, and whether the trail proposal would be picked up by <br />anyone besides the Applicant. Bill Boulet asked the Applicant: If the Commission feels <br />comfortable with the 25% landscaping requirement being met with the vacation of the easement, <br />do you feel comfortable paying for the bike path? Yes. Very willing to work with this situation. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />