My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2012 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 12 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:09 AM
Creation date
11/12/2020 1:49:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 />November 29, 2012 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />Lipton asked how the numbers were achieved on the Fiscal Considerations. <br />McMillan gave the formulas for the Fiscal Considerations. <br />Russ stated staff recommends either Option #3 or Option #4, or a hybrid. <br />Lipton asked if Safeway is included in Option #2 and flags it for additional work. <br />Russ answered in the affirmative. He added there are actually two special area plans <br />in 2013, and one of them is a focus on the South Boulder Road area. <br />Public Comment <br />Barney Funk, 1104 Centennial Heights West, moved here because of the zoning to <br />the west, knowing the area would remain as open space since commercial does not <br />make sense there. He added the extra residential in Option #4 will put a heavy <br />burden on Fireside Elementary. He stated additional residential would also create a <br />traffic nightmare in our neighborhood. He is not opposed to Option #3, but does not <br />like the character type “Urban”. <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 Chokecherry Drive, stated he believes the Main Street <br />realignment concept is a great idea. He stated he likes Option #4 over Option #3 <br />because the residential component makes sense for the future redevelopment of <br />Centennial Valley. People are living, shopping and operating differently than ever <br />before. <br />Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson, stated he is very impressed with the Comp Plan and <br />that it is going in the appropriate direction. He added the language used to discuss <br />the character and area types is appropriate. He would like to see less emphasis on <br />centers and corridors – it should be more neighborhood centers. He stated he liked <br />Option #4. <br />BJ Wakely, 1164 Hillside, spoke directly to the sketch regarding the McCaslin/Urban <br />Mixed Use neighborhood. He stated this concept shows way too many houses. If <br />there are going to be houses they should have larger lots, similar to the Centennial <br />Heights area. <br />David Andrews, 561 Lincoln Avenue, recommended the Comp Plan should define <br />the downtown area neighborhood as a different type of residential neighborhood than <br />the rest of Louisville. The neighborhood should remain diversified. <br />Lipton asked staff to address David’s concerns. <br />McCartney stated this area is under the guidance of an Old Town Overlay which <br />provides design standards specific to this area, making it unique to any other area in <br />Louisville. <br />Moline asked if the same could be held true for the McCaslin Area neighborhood. He <br />asked if there would be a small area plan for this area. <br />Russ answered in the affirmative. He stated there can be design guidelines more <br />specific to what we currently have. <br />Brauneis asked how defined is the density of the McCaslin sketch idea.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.