My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 05 04
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2015 05 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:37 PM
Creation date
6/2/2015 8:07:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2015 05 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Business Retention & Development Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 2, 2015 <br />Page 2of4 <br />City Manager Fleming said the City has had numerous people come through saying they want to <br />build housing and mixed use, housing and senior, etc. and we have told them there is not <br />community support for more housing on the Phillips 66 site. <br />RMCS Rich Brew said in terms of what they experience, Public Works takes a lot of time to <br />review. He understands that it is hard to bring staff on for one project review. When demand <br />is there, there aren't always people there. Can the City hire temps? City Manager Fleming <br />said the City should be able to bring resources on when we are taking in a lot of fees. <br />However, Developers need to submit complete plans. Brew said ideally there would be a City <br />staffer who is available to us to come over at a days' notice. <br />Council member Loo said given other pressing priorities regional business collaboration not <br />a topic for us. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: <br />None <br />REVIEW OF SOUTH BOULDER ROAD SMALL AREA PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES: <br />DeJong said conceptual designs are coming. He asked Planner II Scott Robinson to present a <br />review of the guiding principles gathered from community input so BRaD could consider this <br />from a business perception. <br />Planning is developing 3 different alternatives to take to City Council to create a preferred <br />alternative. There were 3 opportunities for input: <br />1. stakeholders interviews <br />2. envisionLouisvilleco.com <br />3. public kick -off meetings <br />Took comments and distilled them down to a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunites and <br />Threats (SWOT) analysis. <br />Four community values emerged: <br />1. Integrated open space and trail networks <br />2. Our livable small town feel <br />3. Sense of community <br />4. Balanced transportation system <br />Measures of success in the packet. <br />Principles 1 - Provide for safer and more convenient connections across SoBoRd and Hwy 42 <br />for bikes and pedestrians. <br />DeJong said business property owners feel interconnectivity is important to them too. <br />Do we need underpasses or better signal configuration? That is what will be looked at for best <br />solution. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.