Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2021 11 10

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 4 of 6 their land acquisition process. The County has said that they would be interested in considering the land further, but Louisville would need to take the lead. Charles said he was surprised by the ranking. The top four properties all had houses on them, which he thought didn't look good. Laura said the reason the reason those properties are there reflects the fact that they have the unique feature of water flowing along them (Coal Creek) and high connectivity. Annaliese commented that she thought perhaps water was over -represented in the rankings and this should be readdressed for the next time the board does this process. Jessamine said she wanted to be clear about how to communicate the purpose of this ranking to council. Laura reminded the board that the low -priority properties aren't on this list, as the board voted not to revisit them this round, so included properties are already those worthy of consideration. She added that ranking was less important to communicate than simply by calling properties high/med/low priority. She also stressed that the weighting of water in this process was not an accident, but had been done intentionally. Peter agreed with Laura and said he felt like the process should be respected even if he didn't agree with a few small details. Helen didn't think the details of the spreadsheet should be consolidated. She thought the information about the ranking criteria might actually be useful to Council. She reminded the board that the City bought the Cottonwood Park property even with the church on it, and the church has been demolished. There are other examples of properties have been subdivided that included houses. Charles said he wants to revisit the process of these rankings. He also wants to factor money into the process. Nathan replied that Council are the ones who have to make a call about money. Ember added that the board has a memo specifically directing Council that the board does not considering financial issues when making this list. David commented that he wants to make sure this document is "boiled down" for council, and recommended that packet to council lead with a map. He asked if there was a similar process for Parks. Ember said that there have been parcels OSAB has recommended for PPLAB, but they don't have a formal list process yet. David suggested discussing this with PPLAB. Ember suggested that the map could show "priority" parcels (all the ones on this list) vs "considered but not selected" parcels. The A properties (Redtail Ridge) would move into that category, as they are slated for development. Charles agreed with this plan because he didn't see a clear break in the spreadsheet's scores that would clarify how to divide the properties into high and medium priorities.