My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2005 06 20 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2005 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2005 06 20 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:41:46 PM
Creation date
11/10/2005 2:15:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/20/2005
Cross-Reference
CC/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2005 06 20 SP
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 />City Council/Planning Commission <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br />June 20, 2005 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated one of the processes of the development of the plan <br />was to identify the numbers. He noted the various models were tested by <br />identifying numbers. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair McAvinew explained the plan is a general framework document and <br />the numbers are not meant to be absolutes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deborski stated he recognized during the process, that if the <br />numbers were not identified, the citizenry would not have accepted the plan. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt stated the plan is still a framework document and <br />suggested a range of numbers rather than a stated number. She felt a set <br />number is prescriptive. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated the numbers were considered a range of density. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk stated another citizen comment was the redevelopment of the <br />Storage Technology property. He asked the Planning Commission members to <br />comment on the potential for residential development at that site and the <br />redevelopment of the Storage Technology campus. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated the Planning Commission felt the Storage Technology <br />Campus would be commercially redeveloped for office and retail over a period of <br />time. With respect to the housing development aspect, he stated the site does <br />not lend itself to such a use as it would divide the community. <br /> <br />Council member Marsella asked if the Planning Commission considered a <br />Transit Oriented Development overlay for a transportation center at Storage <br />Technology. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated the consulting team advised the Planning Commission <br />that anything over one quarter of a mile diminishes the interest in public <br />transportation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deborski stated transportation was discussed by the Planning <br />Commission and there was a desire to have public transportation to provide a <br />connection from the Monarch Campus and Avista with old town Louisville. <br /> <br />Council member Marsella stated the plan precludes the opportunity to capture <br />transportation development. <br /> <br />Council member Brown concurred that transportation was essential. He asked if <br />the Planning Commission's recommendation is that Storage Technology be <br />redeveloped as commercial and retail. Chairperson Lipton responded yes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.