My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board 2017 06 14 Final Minutes
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board 2017 06 14 Final Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:19 AM
Creation date
12/17/2018 4:29:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
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.
/
7
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
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />June 14th, 2017 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br />pavement marking for safety might be possible. Andrew thought it would be helpful but <br />was maybe too detailed an item for discussion as this point. <br />Frank presented the pros and cons of the two options. One of the pros to Option <br />1 is that phasing could allow the trail to remain open during construction. Helen asked <br />how long this project might take. Cameron thought it might be about 6 months. Option 2 <br />would require the trail to shut down during construction. The grading would be also <br />different between the two. Another the cons for Option 2 is that it will need a retaining <br />wall on the west side of the property. It will also require lowering the fiber optics in the <br />area. <br />Fiona asked about comparative costs between the options. Frank thought it <br />would be a wash between the two. Laura pointed out that the s-intersection of Option 1 <br />is exactly the kind of intersection that the wayfinding initiative sought to identify and <br />eliminate. She felt the City would end up wanting to redesign it in ten years. She would <br />be willing to pay more and temporarily close the trail, but do it right the first time. The <br />cyclists on the board also didn't like the blind curve of Option 1. Laura added that the <br />steeper grade of Option 1 would also ensure that cyclists would be speeding up as they <br />hit the blind curve. <br />Ember reported that Jim preferred Option 2. <br />OSAB unanimously preferred Option 2. <br />OSAB unanimously agreed with staff's recommendation for landscaping. <br />OSAB added that they liked the idea of adding yellow lane line striping on the <br />concrete and flood gates to the final plan. <br />XI. Review and Make Recommendations on The Business Center at CTC (Fed <br />Ex) PUD—Presented by: Alan Gill, Project Manager and Lisa Ritchie, Associate <br />Planner, Jim Vasbinder, VP Development of Etkins Johnson <br />The project is on Highway 42 and 104th street. Atkins Johnson will lease the <br />building to Fed Ex. The building will be one story and built to Leeds specification. The <br />City has asked that the developer put in a welcome to Louisville sign installation in the <br />NE corner. There will also be some landscaping added along Hwy 42 and along the <br />south side of Taylor Ave. <br />Staff had three recommendations. <br />1) Staff wants drainage and landscaping to accommodate a trail system to the Pearl <br />Izumi campus to the west and to the 104th intersection to the NE. It could connect to a <br />future 104th street trail that has been long wished -for by the City and OSAB. There will <br />probably be new traffic signals at 104th & Hwy. 42, and at Dillon Rd & Hwy. 42 allowing <br />for a North -South trail along 104th St. The board agreed with this recommendation <br />unanimously. <br />2) Staff wants assurances that there will be no City landscaping maintenance burden in <br />the future. The board agreed with this recommendation unanimously. <br />3) Staff wants a realignment for the access road to be outside of any easement. Ember <br />pointed out that this easement isn't designated Open Space and is not the boards <br />purview, so she thinks OSAB shouldn't vote on this third point. The board agreed and <br />did not vote on this recommendation. <br />XII. Discussions Items for the Next Meeting on Wednesday, July 12th- <br />A. Finalizing the title for the acquisition documents. <br />B. Review the high/med/low designation for the properties. <br />C. Fiona would like to hear an update or feedback from staff about the DOLA <br />document. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.