Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />Patty Leslie, Finance Director, stated that city does not trace the sales tax by single family; it is <br />only tracked per capita. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that this is a difficult situation because we always hear that the model is flawed. He <br />stated that the City Council needs to give policy direction for a financial model for any <br />development. <br /> <br />McAvinew, Pritchard, Lipton, Loo and Sheets had no questions at this time. <br /> <br />Staff and Applicant Closing Comments: <br />Staff had no comments. <br /> <br />Wittenberg provided the following summary points: <br />1) There are no surprises for the homeowners because McStain is very careful to disclose <br />that information to potential buyers. <br />2) McStain has a goal of customer satisfaction. <br />3) A development at this site would not be efficient use of the land to come forward with <br />seven very large homes. <br />4) An additional benefit, at no cost to the City is the planned open space dedication of the <br />land on the west side of McCaslin. <br />5) The landscaping that is planned along the east side of McCaslin could easily be expanded <br />to include an attractive streetscape on the west side of McCaslin. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br />Dalton had the following statements. The HOA fees are reasonable. The low stone fence and <br />continuing of the rail fence create a nice entry to the development. The last condition regarding <br />the note about the HOA incurring any future improvements is unreasonable. The Comprehensive <br />Plan is to be our guiding planning document and it identifies this area as medium density. <br /> <br />Deborski stated that he does not support the development at 25 units. <br /> <br />McAvinew stated that he likes the 25 units because it is supported by the Comp Plan, which is <br />our guideline document. The applicant has planned the development with the neighborhood in <br />mind. They have addressed the traffic concerns with the one access point. He addressed a <br />question to the residents in the audience: What benefit did they bring to the City? <br /> <br />Pritchard stated he is not convinced that the density is correct. He understands the importance of <br />Open Space for the residents but how will they be able to use the proposed open space on the <br />west side of McCaslin. He would like to see a gateway created for this part of Louisville. The <br />traffic issue has been addressed to the best that McStain can do with the situation as it is. <br />Residential does not pay its way and he sees no benefit to the City for this development therefore <br />he does not support the development. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that he likes the design, the good gateway concept they have created. Traffic still <br />remains a concern for him. He would propose 2-3 homes, possibly single-story, on the west side <br />of McCaslin to lower the density on the east. He suggests the following numbers: 14 on the east <br />and 3 on the west. <br /> <br />Loo stated that if the city does not want to create urban sprawl then we need to increase density. <br />McStain has created a very nice design for the development. The commission hears "I've got <br />mine, so let's shut the door." She stated that she values her neighbors. They are what sells the <br />community. What kind of message are we sending to new people in the community? She <br />