My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 23
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2003 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:15 AM
Creation date
9/10/2014 12:31:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2003 09 23
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />tax is to STK. <br />Pittman stated that the tax money will help pay for the improvements. <br /> <br />Loo asked about the kind of residential mix they are looking at. <br />Pittman referenced the GDP in the fact that they were proposing townhomes, patio homes, and <br />high-end rental units but not detached single-family homes. <br /> <br />Loo asked about the senior housing they keep talking about. <br />Pittman stated it potentially would be independent living through full nursing home, which <br />provides a transition of care options for residents. <br /> <br />Wood requested and detailed thirteen items (emails and letters) that need to be entered into public <br />record. McDermott noted that his reply to Lipton was not included. Wood will locate the email <br />and include it. <br /> <br />Kalish moved and Pritchard seconded a motion to enter the emails and letters into the record. <br />Lipton called for a voice vote. All in favor. <br /> <br />Commission comments and discussion: <br /> <br />Lipton requested comments and discussion from the Commission on how to proceed <br /> <br />Lipton shared the following concerns: 1) he would like to spend some focused time on the GDP, <br />how to approach each district / area of the GDP; 2) after that is complete then address the other <br />issues, i.e. traffic, FAR and 3) discuss whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is warranted. <br /> <br />Robson expressed that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments needs to be addressed first. He <br />feels that STK can do everything they have asked for without the amendment. He stated that the <br />amendment should be a City process and not landowners using it to create a vision for their <br />property. He also requested more detail on the GDP. <br /> <br />Pritchard supports Robson's comments. He stated that he still needs to be convinced that the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment is needed. He also expressed concern that we need to really <br />listen to the citizens of Louisville. <br /> <br />McAvinew expressed concern with the 80-acre parcel. Is the City or County willing to purchase <br />the parcel for Open Space because we have heard that from a few citizens. He does not feel that <br />a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is needed. The zoning request is an important aspect of the <br />applications and he feels that the PCZD zoning allows the Planning Commission more control <br />then the current zoning designation. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that the Planning Commission needs to recognize that the City stopped their effort <br />to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The City forced the applicant to bring the amendments <br />forward. He agrees that more work is needed to finalize the GDP. He would like to have the <br />Commission focus attention on the Comprehensive Plan at the next meeting. He would like to see <br />a discussion related to the different districts and then more Comprehensive Plan review. <br /> <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.