My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2004 10 26
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2004 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2004 10 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:26:24 AM
Creation date
9/15/2010 2:24:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
1A5
Supplemental fields
Test
SSAGPKT 2004 10 26
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
that would be synergistic with the employment opportunities. New housing would <br />also support existing retail development along McCaslin and be in closer <br />proximity to the proposed BRT station at McCaslin and U.S. 36. While some <br />noted that the BRT station might not drive redevelopment or housing decisions, a <br />mix of unique housing types (rental, affordable, for -sale) should be encouraged <br />through flexible zoning. Others felt that high -end executive housing could be <br />located on the ridgelines of Centennial Valley. <br />For Area 7 (S. Boulder and McCaslin), they noted that the current conditions <br />(vacant large lots) were not supported by the market, and that commercial uses <br />were not appropriate for this location. Denser, single -story development was <br />recommended with a mix of open space relating to the existing trails. Assets in <br />this location included remnants of native plant communities and scenic vistas, <br />although there was disagreement about the role of this location as a prominent <br />gateway. Some suggested providing flexible zoning so that the market could <br />provide an adequate solution. <br />This group also discussed locations for a potential performing arts /civic center in <br />each Area. Area 1, 2 (Highway 42 Revitalization area or St. Louis Parish), and 5 <br />(near BRT station) were the preferred locations. The Heritage Museum proposed <br />at S. Boulder Road and Highway 42 might best be located in the downtown or in <br />the Highway 42 Revitalization area in order to be more visible by foot traffic. <br />Group 2 <br />Area 1 (Northeast Louisville) contained a number of challenges. Group 2 <br />encouraged the City to be proactive about resolving ownership and <br />unincorporated issues. The gateways are critical, and it was suggested that civic <br />uses or open space set the tone for an entryway into Louisville. S. Boulder Road <br />and Highway 42 should function as a commercial gateway as well. <br />The relationship of new development (esp. a park or new housing) against the <br />proposed LaFayette developments is also a concern and opportunities for a <br />community buffer appear to be limited. They were supportive of a park located in <br />Northeast Louisville, but demand for lighted ballfields must be substantiated due <br />to its impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Most office uses were discouraged, <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.