My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 06 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 06 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:17:49 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/13/2019
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.
/
18
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 />June 13, 2019 <br />Page 5 of 18 <br />Williams asked if the City would be bound in any financial way based on the proposed <br />GDP. <br />Zuccaro replied that everything to do with the City would be addressed in the PUD <br />process. <br />Howe asked if there were any tenants who were already interested in the area being <br />redeveloped. <br />Zuccaro responded that he was not aware of a particular user, but the main difference <br />at this time from before was that the proposal took 200,000 square feet of retail and <br />trying to turn that into 20-30,000 square feet of retail, 80,000 square feet of non- <br />residential uses, and then having the residential. The City did not think it was ever going <br />to get another 200,000 square feet of new retail. <br />Brauneis asked how the plan would affect the Downtown area. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff had heard concern that the redevelopment area could take <br />away from Main Street business, but the fiscal model analysis took into consideration <br />the cannibalization of existing retail, even though the goal was to capture new retail with <br />the redevelopment. <br />Brauneis asked for the square footage of retail in the redevelopment with Centre Court <br />Apartments. <br />Zuccaro responded that he did not know, but he noted that the fiscal analysis for the <br />GDP took into consideration cannibalization of retail in its calculations. <br />Brauneis asked how much retail was included in the Centre Court Apartment block <br />redevelopment. Zuccaro replied that he could find out. Brauneis then asked if there <br />were any alternatives discussed for the streetscape. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff had not addressed any design elements at this point. <br />Moline asked for the percentage of the City's revenue coming from the McCaslin trade <br />area. <br />Zuccaro replied that the area accounted for almost 50% of the City's sales tax revenue, <br />which was not necessarily the correct percentage for overall revenue. <br />Brauneis asked for public comment. <br />Jerome McQuie, 972 St. Andrews Lane in Louisville, was concerned that the heights <br />were higher than anywhere else in the city and that the plan allowed for development <br />right up to the sidewalk on Dahlia Street. The height of the Sam's Club and the Kohl's <br />was higher than Dahlia and the condominiums were lower than the elevation at Dahlia, <br />which added more to the elevation differential for people living on Dahlia. He also <br />thought that the plan was not sensitive to the McCaslin Small Area Plan. He understood <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.