Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 08 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2020 Page 12 of 24 Rice asks Diehl if he would like a motion based upon what staff just said. Diehl makes that motion. Howe asks why they do not decline the proposal tonight. Rice says that he thinks staff wants it for a written record. He asks staff if that is a correct statement. Zuccaro says that is correct. It is the city's standard to have a resolution of an approval or denial. Because staff did not make a recommendation on the comprehensive plan amendment, staff did not draft those resolutions because they first wanted the commissioner's feedback. Brauneis mentions that hopes that the draft would include more detail on the sustainability issues that have been mentioned. He thought there was a lack of depth in the interest of sustainability and did not hear enough spoken on the subject. He asks staff how city council will be informed of the resolution and commissioner recommendations. Zuccaro mentions that city council will have access to the meeting minutes and recordings so they will be able to be informed on the various commissioner recommendations. Staff will try to draft the resolution based upon the commissioner's recommendations. He also mentions that the resolution draft could mention sustainability specifically and that Commissioner Brauneis could make a proposal to add that language. Diehl again mentions the need for the development to get greater resident and citizen input throughout the process in whatever form that may take. He suggest that being an added proposal for the draft of the resolution. Moline says that from his perspective, this application is similar to when the city approved for the orientation towards the McCaslin/Highway 36 corridor. This application is as significant as that. If the community is interested in moving the city into that direction, an amendment to the existing comprehensive plan is not the way to do it. The city would have to re -write the comprehensive plan to get into a place to approve something like this. He also mentions that the development struggles to meet Criteria A. This development is challenged to create a balanced transportation system. It is very automobile dependent and with that comes fossil fuels dependency. This brings into question the sustainability efforts. He does not believe this will be a walkable development, considering all the parking set in place, and Louisville is known for being a walkable town. Regarding Criteria B, he mentions that he might need some help in understanding if this development creates adverse service impacts or not. The development would make sure the Wastewater Treatment Plant is adequate enough but the city would still need more city employees such as police officers. It is unclear to him if those services will be available if this development is approved and that greatly concerns him. Zuccaro makes note that the applicant's attorney would like to speak.