Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 09 22

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 08, 2022 Page 10 of 13 be the production and manufacturing side that could include pharmaceuticals. He is not sure what products would be used or made, though. Public Comment: Moline moves and Diehl seconds a motion to add both addendums into the record. Motion passes unanimously by a voice vote. Jojo Follmar, 1712 Steel St, Apt 7302 Follmar recommends not approving Redtail ridge. Our area has already so many more jobs than houses; it will be devastating for climate with how many more car trips there will be. It will be less affordable housing and there is not enough open space for this development. Matt Jones, 265 Dahlia Dr Jones says the developer's previous proposed GDP lost by five points during the election process of Redtail Ridge. Based upon the election finding, the city was not in favor of this development. These proposals are not just based on criteria but also heavily influenced and pushed by the public and public opinion. This plan has more open space but it should be the most public land dedicated space, not the second. Please do what the community wants you to do and deny this proposal. Jerry McQuie, 972 St Andrews Ln McQuie comments on the plat. The plat calls for vacating drainage easements from the Boulder Valley School District but he sees no communications in the packets indicating that the school district agreed to it. He does not want to see road improvements on 88tn Street in preparation for this proposal because of the delays possible from multiple municipalities involved. He asks the commission to keep the limits that were in the 2010 GDP. Regarding the economic analysis, you did take out the use and sales tax for the hospital but he believes the employee contribution should be taken out as well. RJ Harrington, 457 E Raintree Ct Harrington says the last two pages of the packet prove that these developers are not our neighbors. These developers are not recognizing what their neighbors have been saying for years. None of them has a Louisville address. He would like to hear a definition of hope and he hopes that this plat does not get approved. Cathern Smith, 608 West St Smith discusses Section 16.12.060. A preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat. She does not think the code says you can review them simultaneously. She focuses on the approval with conditions. She thinks conditions are different from approving with modifications. A modification is saying the plat will be approved if these changes are made. A condition is saying we will approve the plat on the condition that for example a traffic demand management plan is submitted. She does not view this code section saying the commission can approve with conditions. She says she is uncomfortable with grey. She has been attending the other board meetings such as parks and open space. If the city does not tie down the participant in very clear terms, the proposal starts to change. She still does not know if the 47 acres is a conservation easement. She asks the commission to make the applicant commit in writing their 12