Planning Commission Minutes 2005 08 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes AUGUST 11, 2005 Page 6 of 15 Lipton requested a motion to enter into the record the information on the ‘lift unit’. McAvinew moved and Pritchard seconded the motion. Motion passed by voice vote with one ‘nay’ vote. Staff requested to have a letter from Peter Stewart dated August 8, 2005 entered into record. Pritchard moved and McAvinew seconded a motion to enter the letter into record. Lipton inquired of Stewart if the letter pertained to the recall or the amended PUD/SRU. Stewart stated that it addressed concerns for both. Motion passed by voice vote. Fordyce continued with the following informational points of discussion: Definition of inoperable and wrecked cars.  Car covers are now used on vehicles left outside overnight on the property.  If Phase 2 of the project had been built first we probably would not be reviewing a  recall. Parking space will triple with new building.  Commission Questions: Lipton requested a clarification of the wording for the following condition: “No operable or wrecked vehicles shall be parked in such a manner as to be visible from either adjacent public right-of-way (ROW). All inoperable or wrecked vehicles shall be parked indoors or in the screened impound areas.” Wood stated that the wording is correct in referencing the “operable or wrecked vehicles”. Lipton continued with a discussion regarding the location of the business and its relationship to the HWY 42 project. McAvinew noted that he had observed improvements to site operations since the last meeting but it still needs further improvement. Loo stated that she has observed some improvements but they are not consistent. Pritchard stated that the 1990 PUD should have been called up before now and that the Commission should spend its time and energy on the PUD and SRU request. Dalton stated that the Commission and the property owner have a different view of the problem and still sees a need to address the cosmetic site issues. Fordyce asked if the PUD did not have the language of operable and inoperable vehicles in the notes then would the issue be more a code enforcement instead of a PUD issue. Lipton stated that it is a PUD issue specifically related to the defined parking areas and the wrecked vehicles belong inside a building or the impound area. Lipton suggested that the hearing be continued to the November 2005 meeting and for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the 1990 PUD requirements. Pritchard requested a clarification of the terms operable and inoperable. Bleau reviewed Louisville Municipal Code Section 8.16.04.D.1, which is the definition.