Planning Commission Minutes 2005 03 15

Home Browse Search

DRAFT Wood provided a brief presentation of Chapter 1, Introduction, which focuses on how the Plan works. The Plan includes relevant plans that are intended to be adopted by reference. The Plan is advisory and is intended to be used in conjunction with other concurrent plans and documents that are both regulatory and functional. Public Comments on Chapter 1 – each speaker is asked to keep their comments to 4 minutes: Eva Kosinski, 1301 Jackson Ct, discussed a test wording on page 1-10 regarding the Louisville Revitalization Commission. Lipton advised her that the section she was referencing had been recently edited by the City Attorney. Susan Morris, 939 W. Maple, stated that the recommended Comp Plan opens the door for new development and she advises the Commission to be cautious of new development. Debra Kalish, 477 Fireside, thanked the City Staff, the Commissioners and the Consultant Team for the work that had been accomplished on the Plan. She reviewed the format of the three public workshops and stated that the Plan represents that information from those workshops. She also described the other tools (Survey Results, Stakeholder Interviews) used by the Commission and the Consultants to develop the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the entire process was well done. Frost Yarnell, 1109 Hillside Ln, discussed the difference between Community Input and Community Involvement. She stated that she feels that the Community Input is not reflected in the Plan. She sited an example of Area 6 with relation of the need to maintain Open Space and it is not included in the Plan. Ty Gee, 253 Hoover Ct., stated that he liked the meetings with the Stakeholder and the number of workshops but believes that the Plan does not reflect what was spoken during those meetings. Mats Aretun, 1141 Hillside Ct. expressed concern with the process used by the Consultant Team and that the feedback received during that process has not been reflect in the Plan. Planning Commission Questions and Comments: Lipton asked for a page by page review of the document with Commissioners making suggested edits to the Plan. The following is a brief description of those recommended edits: Sheets – pg 4 – remove wording ‘less expensive’ in the reference to Empty Nester housing. McAvinew – pg 5 – Parks & Open Space – why is the golf course included in the calculations? Lipton – Does the National Standard include those acres in its calculations? Lipton requested staff to revise the section and to check how the National Standard calculate acres for Golf Courses. Loo – pg 12 – What relationship does the proposed Historical Preservation Ordinance have with the Plan? Does a reference to it belong in Chapter 1 or Chapter 4? Wood stated that it will become a section within the Louisville Municipal Code and can be cross referenced in Chapter 4. nd Sheets – page 13 – change with to within (2 paragraph). 3