Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 04 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2012 Page 7of 16 Pritchard asked if the project moves forward should there be a sharedparking agreement with the property owners to the west. Russ stated no because the site can support the required parking. Pritchard asked for a clarification of criteria #1 of the SRU criterion. Russ discussed how staff interpreted the criteria and stated it is consistent with all but one principal/policy. Brauneis asked if anyone evaluated what it would take to let people turn left at Centennial Drive onto South Boulder Road during the time a train is going through town. Fox stated there could be apotential problem but could be easily addressed with the timing of the signal lights. Brauneis asked what the current level of service is. Fox stated is a B to C and is not so much based on time but more on space. Brauneis asked if an evaluation had been done to allow only a right onto Centennial. Fox stated it had not been evaluated but it probably won’t change the level of service. Summary Comments and Request from Staffand Applicant: None heard. Closed Public Hearing –Planning Commission Discussion: Russell stated this has been an amazing process. He stated this is a two step thought process: 1) is mixed use an appropriate use for the site and 2) is this project appropriate for the site. He continued to discuss step 1 by saying the mixed use is appropriate and it is good to rethink uses of the site. He stated the specific proposal is better thanthe present state of the site. He likes the buildings coming out to the street and the vitality of rental units. However, he does not think this is the appropriate project for the site because: massing, parking, height, and the change of CCzoning to primarily residential uses. He stated it would be more appropriate to rezone to Mixed Use. Tengler thanked staff for their effort, the applicant for their patience and especially the public for speaking about their concerns or support of the project. He stated his agreement with this beingan appropriate use of the site but he continues to have concerns regarding: parking, traffic, and massing. He stated the commission needs to be patient and look harder at this sitefor uses that are more compatible to the neighborhood. Lipton stated there will be more of these commercial redevelopments asthe community ages and we need to have a community vision. He stated by substituting residential for commercial through the SRU process is not the appropriate process. He stated this is one of the most challenging sites for redevelopment in Louisville. The site needs better uses because it is not meant for retail. Mixed use has a role on this property but the scale and density is too much for the site because it completely changes the neighborhood character. The building next to the street are too much “in