My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 11 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 11 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:18:28 AM
Creation date
12/12/2011 9:22:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2011 11 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
Revitalization Commission <br />Agenda <br />DATE <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />citizens of Louisville want to spend $200 -$300K for a quiet zone in that area, <br />that's an option. Heather- we aren't honestly aware of exactly how much it costs <br />and how that will align with the priorities of the whole city. Expect they'll have <br />to do an update to the environmental studies at some point, and perhaps that's an <br />option for that to be revisited. <br />VIII. Update on Request for Proposals - Integrated Infrastructure Implementation Plan, <br />Louisville FasTracks Station Area & Hwy 42 Corridor — see planning's update <br />above. <br />IX. Business Matters of Commission <br />a. Discussion/Direction /Action on LRC letter(s) to Planning Commission <br />concerning recommendation on amendments to mixed use design <br />guidelines <br />Michael stated that shortly after our last meeting, city staff strongly <br />counseled Carlos and he to reconsider the LRC proposal and have done <br />so. With the consent of the Emily Jasiak and Rob Lathrop, we'd like to <br />propose a different motion. Carlos and he agree that allowing <br />residences on 1st floor by special review of use is acceptable, and is a <br />minor change to the mixed -use guidelines. If we withdraw the motion <br />and put forth the subsequent motion, everyone on the LRC can support <br />it. That was his hope. <br />Carlos- Motion to reconsider the motion he previously made. <br />Rob Lathrop — Second <br />Carlos — Amend my prior motion to read as follows — (New motion — <br />update Table 1 — under mixed use residential (MU -R) - to "R" as <br />opposed to "Yes." Intent- allow first floor residential by special review <br />use. Make red line changes were necessary to be consistent with the <br />motion, e.g. the land use table, amend text on page 9 /or page 16 of the <br />packet — make it consistent with the table. <br />Michael- there may be additional changes suggested in the next comp <br />plan revision, but that is not currently affected by this amendment. <br />Rob Lathrop asked if a building is built, and the 1st floor remains vacant <br />for a year- do they lose their special review? <br />Troy responded No. <br />Mayor- We need to be clear this does not affect density, height etc- it is <br />not a change in the comp plan. We want to be aware of an election <br />Nov 1. Suggest this to be clear in our memo to the various parties. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.