Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 02 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2015 Page 21 of 23 their concerns. So the City seems to promote getting more citizen involvement which is helpful for both the City and the citizens, he hopes that the PC and the City Council will pay closer attention to what they are hearing from their Louisville neighbors. Most of us want to see healthy development and improvements in Louisville, but not at the expense of losing our small town character. We can have the conversation of what small town character is and it may be an abstract issue, if you see it, you'll know it. After you have had a chance to review all the information and citizen input regarding the redevelopment or development ideas for South Boulder Road, he hopes the PC will make the recommendations to City Council that are in the best interest of the City and its residents. He was looking at the community weekly in the Daily Camera a few weeks ago, and an advertisement caught his eye from a newer business, Elevations Credit Union, on McCaslin. The advertisement said "Here to a return to what matters, to knowing your true social network is physically located i - ommunity that you call home. Here's to Main Street, not Wall Street." Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Pritchard asks that based on the SWOT analysis, is PC in the document? Are we in support? rtable a changes red -lined Russell asks if the purpose of SWOT analysis to . - ranscript or summary d received at the kick -off meeting or is it a combin ' • of kick -of 4 . stakeholder Russ answers that this is more than the public me- • We nvisionLouisvill-.com, we have numerous interactions with the community both - •f stakeholders, BRAD feedback you committee, City Council doing proacti information to and from the public. Th community as we get physical. The ne ground. From a SWOT perspective, it is earch, and to summ ake this awar community as challenging; t are meant to "this is wha measure them. Altern awareness to the c as a number of ways to get t and give some guidance to the actually put strategies on the to what we find as a th ° community. The Principles we • - p with alternatives, we want to rinciples; the SWOT is to simply raise t are before us. ntire com o achie ided b rtunities Russell says the ans corridor, he w Boulder the m lac purp what is do you do regulations t thin m •out the aesthetic appearance of the ks about driving over the hill down South it is nice. W - ou get farther east, it gets sketchy, but is that Ik about. He is find keeping it in and fine taking it out. The Tres says there is a lack of consensus on the primary n issue of community consensus and more an issue of dor. s is an issue that all communities are dealing with, what at? On Principle 3, we could say that established design nt "closely reflects" because he doesn't think you can "strongly Id be op ortan munity con f the corridor. urpose of the a big road lik re develo reflect" the co Tengler says he is i . of keeping the notion of the "appearance of the corridor" as we are talking about a relative small segment from the other side of the ball fields to Via Appia, not considering the vista going down the hill on South Boulder Road. We are talking about a much smaller section and candidly, he thinks there are some areas within that stretch that could use some work from a visual standpoint. He is in favor of keeping "closely reflects ". He is comfortable with the rest of the SWOT analysis and the rest of the Principles that Staff has modified from the last PC meeting. Rice says that the Threats sections could perhaps be better stated as Challenges but then it would not be SWOT. From his perspective, not announcing that there is a lack of consensus ultimately but that this is a challenge we need to work through to see if we can drive consensus.