Planning Commission Minutes 2015 04 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2015 Page 7 of 23 department has been working with our fiscal model consultant to determine the capacity of our staff; do we have any slack in the line or not? A marginal cost model will be a more accurate model in terms of Louisville's budget of service. Rice asks will Staff be studying revenue ramifications? Russ says the model does calculate revenues. Rice asks that Staff is recommending the PC to endorse these various alternatives. He is uncomfortable with the word "endorse". Russ says that whatever motion the PC takes, he agrees that "endorse" may imply that it is a preference. Rice says he is not voting to endorse anything having to do with market study because he thinks the market study is driven by what people think they can sell, and that does not necessarily translate into good planning. He clarifies that they are confirming these in terms of things that should be passed forward for further study. The same applies to these alternatives for realignment. Russ says that the land use scenarios present these three options. The Main Street alignments are included in the numbers for each of the land use scenarios. Pritchard speaks about the email that Commissioner Moline submitted to Staff with questions. He asks that Staff answer the questions submitted. Russ points out the specific property that Moline mentions in his email, west of the BNSF RR and east of Centennial. Robinson reads questions. 1. Why not allow MU-R west of the BNSF RR, east of Centennial for the Workshop Alternative? Staff thinking is they left it as office because that is how it functions presently. There is a bank, some medical and dental offices, some vet clinics, and a daycare center. Converting it to MU-R is certainly a possibility. Further back from SBR, retail is unlikely to develop there. If this is a change the PC is interested in making, keeping in line with the MU-R along SBR, but leaving the remainder as office, it would be better. 2. It would seem to align with the Workshop Alternative to have less residential and more MU-R between the BNSF RR and SH42 both north and south of SBR. To some extent, this is done by what is existing. The Christopher Village apartments, the proposed Alconis Development from Boulder County Housing Authority, and the already approved Lanterns development may/will be developed. If Christopher Village redevelops at some point in the future, we could change the zoning to not allow residential. These areas are expected to be residential. On the south side, this area reflects the approved PUD for Coal Creek Station Development which is residential. 3. Is Mixed Use -Retail a customary use of this term? I think of Mixed Use connoting a residential component... How about just Office -Retail? Staff talked about coming up with these names. Technically, Mixed -Use is any two uses or more. Mixed -Use as we define it with office and retail is correct. We can make a change in terms as we are not tied to these names. We wish to get away from the MUR acronym as we have an existing MUR in the City that means something completely different. 4. Recommend differentiating the symbols for "Areas of Change" and Study Area" even though they are on different maps/graphics. Scott thinks this is a good comment and Staff will make the change. 5. Label locations as "Areas of Potential Change" to more formally acknowledge the unknown plans of landowners. Scott says it is shown on the slide. Staff will make the change on the graphics as well. 6. Please label the orange and gray areas which are currently unlabeled. Scott says they will label the areas.