City Council Agenda and Packet 2013 01 08

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes December 18, 2012 Page 8 of 17 Council member Yarnellheard during the Planning Commission hearings,a perception that if Option #4, which allows residential development, is approved, developers would immediately respond. She stressed there are serious consequences for not choosing the correct FrameworkPlan. She asked whether we are building for strength or quick solutions. She felt the word transient, in reference to multi-family units, was not meant in a pejorative way but they do not consider it their permanent residence. She asked whether adding high density units contribute to the core value of the small town atmosphere.She noted funding the City is very reliant on sales tax and if big box is no longer viable the conversation has to turn to what will support the City financially. Mayor Muckle stated the Council wantstohelp the businesses in Centennial Valleyby looking at access and roadway issues, visibility and circulation issues. Council member Jasiak felt it came down to the Centennial Valley/McCaslin District and addressed Option #3.Sheasked Planning Director Russ to expound on the flexibility in Option #3.Planning Director Russ said the Comp Plan works with the market to develop alternatives and workswith the character of the City. Nooption would give agreenlight to business development andthe zoning has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan will include a land use chapter with principles and policies, which can be very specific on what the City’s expectations are. He noted it is not about the map, but rather the principles. Council member Jasiak wondered if Option #3 would send the wrong message to Home Depot andLowe’s. Planning Director Russ explained there is nothing in Option #3 or #4, which statesthey would not be welcome to stay in perpetuity. Option #3 states what is there canremain there, but if abusiness closes,others can be invited to develop. Council member Loo addressed Option #5, which provides for the development south of Centennial. Shenoted the Planning Commission vote was 5 for Option #3.5 and 2 for Option #4. She asked what prompted the changein votesfrom Option # 3 to Option #3.5. Planning Director Russ stated theCommissiondid not see the neighborhood stabilizing in the near-term and looked at the cycle of the Comprehensive Plan. Public testimony and the comfort level that there would be time in the four-year cycle of the Comprehensive Plan resulted in5 votes for Option #3.5. Council member Loo asked if anything in Option #5 stipulates high density residential and if so, coulditbe changed with the small area plan. Planning Director Russ stated there would be opportunity tostipulate different density. Council member Sackett felt things have not changed significantly in his six years on Council. He ran for Council on a platform of keeping Louisville feeling like a small town. He supported residential home development over multi-family dwelling units. Hevoiced his support for Option #2. 23