Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 10, 2021 <br />Page 13 of 15 <br />Brauneis stated that it became relatively more expensive for smaller buildings and that <br />he would personally prefer to see it smaller but they didn't know what the buildings were <br />going to look like. He hadn't seen any indications that there would be buildings under <br />50,000 square feet. He asked what the other commissioners would say about requiring <br />for above 10,000 square feet under the Comp Plan's sustainability references. <br />Commissioner Diehl, Chair Brauneis, and Director Zuccaro discussed the wording for <br />three conditions and asked for any further conditions. <br />Howe asked about a condition that common open space in Lots A, B, and C3 become <br />City Open Space, since if the buildings were not five stories in the GDP then some of <br />that space would not be open space and would not preserve public view shed. He <br />added that he thought the pond on the north side of C3 should be preserved for view <br />shed as required in Comp Plan and he asked whether the open space north of Campus <br />Drive was valuable. The pond area would be more of use to the Louisville citizens. <br />Brauneis stated that right now the language said they could increase height if they <br />offered additional open space. There was also a question whether the City benefited <br />from having land owned and managed by the owner versus if the City had to meet <br />landscape goals and standards around buildings in specific ways and he was hesitant to <br />ask the City to be responsible for that. <br />Moline agreed and added that he relied on staff recommendations and that there were <br />advantages to accruing open space without having it be owned and maintained by the <br />City. The City was well -suited to maintain the areas that were designated as open <br />space in the GDP and he shared the concern about the maintenance issues within the <br />developed areas. <br />Moline asked about some of the GDP zones that were in the first phases on the eastern <br />side of the development allow for diverse uses under industrial, retail, and office. He <br />was concerned that there could be haphazard development in those areas. They would <br />be seeing things come in plat by plat which would give some control but he wondered <br />how others felt about those concerns. <br />Brauneis stated that the laundry list was there as a result of the Code and Comp Plan <br />and he didn't think he could do a competent job of picking and choosing among them. <br />Moline replied that he was a little concerned about the larger industrial buildings that <br />would potentially be alongside the Northwest Parkway/96th Street view shed. He could <br />be compelled to consider limiting some of those uses that would create large buildings <br />along that public way. <br />Diehl did not have the concern of industrial versus office and added that the CTC did a <br />good job of making industrial buildings attractive. His concern was the height. <br />Howe shared the height concern. He didn't know if they could dictate exactly where <br />buildings should be but C3 and A were some of the prime spots for view shed. <br />