My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2025 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2025 11:49:48 AM
Creation date
2/19/2025 10:50:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/13/2025
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.
/
109
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 />October 10, 2024 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Wendy Appel, resident, said that she was concerned about the impact that the other <br />developments in the area would have on traffic when combined with this application. She <br />was also concerned about worsening air quality and increasing noise pollution. <br />Cynthia Corn, resident, felt that the developer had not properly consulted with the local <br />community. She urged the Commission to reject the application. <br />Kyle Cantrel, resident, had concerns about the ability for emergency services to <br />adequately respond to emergencies in the neighborhood with the projected traffic <br />volumes. <br />Jason Farren, resident, felt that the development was not a good fit for the area or for <br />Louisville more broadly. <br />Rita Zamora, resident, had concerns about traffic safety in the neighborhood. She noted <br />that a nearby crosswalk sign had been run over repeatedly, and she feared that the <br />development would only make it worse. <br />Applicant Closing Statement: <br />Jason Markel) addressed the concerns raised about the Front Street connection. He <br />noted that they had conducted extensive consultation around this issue since the previous <br />meeting. They felt that the connection would be advantageous, and that Front Street had <br />the capacity to support the additional traffic volumes. However, he added that the <br />development could still work if the Commission decided to remove the connection, and <br />asked the Commission for guidance as to their preference. <br />Commissioner Questions of the Applicant: <br />Baskett asked about the alternative options to the Front Street connection. <br />Markel) suggested that one option was for a through street that would only allow access <br />for emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. <br />Baskett asked if the applicant would be responsible for designing the street. <br />Zuccaro said that they would be working with the applicant on the street design, and that <br />the applicant would be responsible for building the street. He noted that staff had concerns <br />about not including a street connection, and that further analysis would be required for <br />this. <br />Hunt asked why staff felt that a through road was important. <br />Zuccaro said that it related to the mixed use development design standards, and went in <br />depth about what the guidelines specified, particularly related to the importance of a grid <br />street network to disperse traffic and provide transportation mobility options. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.