My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2007 01 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2007 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2007 01 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:17 AM
Creation date
3/27/2007 10:20:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2007 01 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JANUARY 11, 2007 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br />a federal designation would be difficult to obtain. But, there is no way to know until you take it <br />through the review process. <br /> <br />Dalton asked if the push for the historic designation was not before the applicant would the <br />applicant be interested in razing the building. <br /> <br />Lehman provided an affirmative head nod. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br />Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce St and Ty Gee, 253 Hoover Ct expressed concern with the massing of <br />the building and the number of stories. <br /> <br />Mark Zaremba, 927 Main St., Jay Keany, 1488 Wilson Place and Erik (Unknown), 647 W. <br />Juniper Ct. stated that they support the project and the applicant has incorporated sufficient <br />design measures placing the bulk of the 3rd floor to the rear and alley side of the building. <br /> <br />Lehman asked Staff if the SF allotment for downtown also included residential. <br /> <br />Wood stated there has been no distinction between commercial and residential development in <br />downtown. <br /> <br />Sheets asked if the applicant had had any retail tenant interest. <br /> <br />Lehman stated that the project had not gone to that step. They were waiting for the preliminary <br />approval before moving forward with that component. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: <br />No additional questions heard. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br />Hartman stated that she supports the concept of mixed use and bringing new life to downtown <br />but does not support the project because it is not in the character of downtown and does not <br />provide a good transition from the current residential to commercial. <br /> <br />Lipton asked Hartman what should be changed to create that character of downtown Louisville. <br /> <br />Hartman stated the design is too modern, too loft-like in design, too much glazing and does not <br />look historic. <br /> <br />Dalton stated that he supports the project. He liked the transition that the project creates. He <br />suggested that the project be forwarded to City Council for a preliminary review by council. He <br />would also support eliminating Joe's Market. <br /> <br />Loo stated that this is an exciting development for downtown. She also agrees with Dalton and <br />Lipton about Joe's Market. <br /> <br />Pritchard stated that he supports the project. The applicant has provided a good transition of the <br />3rd floor and to the downtown. He stated he has no problems with the height, no concerns with <br />Joe's Market building. He also stated that the downtown does not have a specific style. <br /> <br />Deborski stated he favors the project but would like to see less glazing. <br /> <br />McAvinew stated he has concerns with the 3rd floor, has mixed feelings about Joe's Market, and <br />supports the idea of the City Council getting a look at the project before it comes back for a final. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.