My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2015 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
2/19/2015 12:52:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2015 02 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 8, 2015 <br />Page 11 of 23 <br />objections at this stage. As the process goes through, he is sure there will be questions and <br />concerns of adjacent property owners and neighbors when they see what the plans really look <br />like. He will address Troy Russ's comment about Kaylix. We have had conversations about <br />Kaylix coming through our property and we do not have an agreement. We have an <br />understanding of what the alignment will be when it is built. Looking at the way the property is <br />laid out, you are severing the property by putting the street through it and it can create problems <br />that have not been addressed yet. He wants to make sure his concerns are part of the record. <br />He has no agreement regarding the street at this time. He is friendly with everyone and willing <br />to talk, but there are issues to be addressed as we go through it. He is generally in support of <br />the annexation. This property obviously needs to be annexed. How much support it gets after <br />we get to see more detail remains to be seen. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />Staff recommends Planning Commission approve Resolution <br />recommending approval of an ordinance zoning as Planne <br />Commercial / Residential (PCZD — C /R) certain property <br />known as the 245 North 96th Street Annexation. App <br />Open Public Hearing and discussion by Commis <br />Moline asks if the applicant is interested in com <br />regarding co- housing application. <br />Boyd says BCHA is not subsidizing the artist co -hou <br />xed into <br />has no furthe <br />eries 2015, a resolution <br />Zone District - <br />ity of Louisville and <br />ment. <br />ng on the <br />is comments i ust heard <br />to develop the site. BCHA's goal is a <br />dollars given to invest in the site. We <br />They are separate saleable parcels tha <br />have found that we do need some reven <br />are partners because it is costly <br />ble housing : ake the best use of the public <br />bsidizing . .using or the Art Underground. <br />nately c: heir share of the cost. We <br />elop • - fordable housing. There is <br />os g the site. Water and <br />nd an exorbitant amount. We <br />e Art Underground, we are not commercial <br />relying on them to fulfill that commercial <br />Village commercial component with this <br />a lot of infrastructure with ra <br />sewer cost a lot. To kee <br />need partners to get t <br />developers and do <br />component becaus <br />site. As to the artist c <br />we do not pa -r with s <br />undercut <br />are loo <br />with <br />give <br />housin <br />communit <br />d and tw <br />for our <br />done. <br />ess. W <br />ie Christo <br />a di nt product from what we are providing, so <br />o i .. . • . rket rate rental housing because that <br />ility to lease o e land and keep our property occupied. We <br />e partner and it felt like the arts in Louisville are good synergy <br />e design as a whole and the focus on the arts, and it has <br />to i ce our design, site planning, and adjacencies. The co- <br />partn- and they are part of Louisville and involved with the <br />k it is a detraction from the affordable housing goals. <br />oradi <br />rt Undergrou <br />lot of creative <br />d be a really g <br />she does no <br />Closed Public - g an. ussion by Commission: <br />Tengler in suppo . . ion. We can address a lot of issues regarding the specific number <br />of units and parking . .erations and road construction when we get into the PUD. <br />Brauneis is encourage to hear this discussion. He thinks now is the time for affordable <br />housing for people within Louisville. He thinks balance is important and when we look at the <br />non - economical and non - fiscal benefits of this project, there is a richness to the project that <br />helps balance the numbers in the report. <br />Moline thanks applicant and staff for working on a project that appears to help accomplish some <br />of the goals in the Comp Plan with regard to urban form and street layout. <br />O'Connell is in support and recommends approval of the ordinance. It is a good opportunity to <br />speak to some of the visions and values and intent in the Comp Plan. She thinks there will be <br />more concerns for the BVSD, especially Louisville Elementary, and to keep conversations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.