Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2022 09 22

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 08, 2022 Page 11 of 13 sustainability commitment. She asks that if the applicant provides new information to their proposal, public comment would be open to speak on that new information. Joshua Cooperman, 216 Griffith St Cooperman says he is not opposed to this development. He asks that the commission not approve this subdivision plat. The current proposal is not efficiently revised from the election proposal. He thinks it does not fully conform with city code, especially regarding the subdivision plat. He speaks on the comprehensive plan and how this proposal does not fit into the comprehensive plan. He thinks there should be a larger open space dedication and a smaller development footprint. There should be more effort to arrange transportation to this site. Environmental sustainability is his main concern. This proposal lacks sustainability because it is an isolated campus in which everyone must drive to reach it. Affordable housing should be a part of this development. Cynthia Come, 438 Jefferson Ave Corne discusses the 2010 PUD and industrial uses. We need specifics around the industrial uses. She is in favor of having Avista Hospital in this development for Louisville. Sustainable pavement needs to be better. She asks how construction traffic will be managed without creating chaos. Sherry Sommer, 910 S Palisade Ct Sommer says the documents submitted by the applicant are the same ones that the public has seen and deliberated over before. The applicant has claimed to listen to our community but those are just words. She is concerned about the grading and drainage plan. The open space proposed is not really usable open space. She does not think this should be approved but should be denied without conditions or modifications. Joy Brook, 1590 Garfield Ave, Unit E Brook says the air pollution is getting worse and this development will further deteriorate the atmosphere. She is concerned about traffic the development will cause and how the wildlife will not be cared for. We need legal requirements with this developer, not vague promises. This does not look like a small town feel, which is an important character trait for Louisville. There are many empty buildings in town. That shows that we do not need this development. This proposal should be denied. Tim Stalker, 806 W Dahlia Ct Stalker says he wonders how 250,000 cubic yards of soil will be stored on site. The footprint is expressed in acreage and the build out is expressed in square feet. He does not know how in city code, they are allowed to look at 47 acres outside of the plat. The city evaluated the public land dedication and they came up with 69.3 acres within the plat. The city staff looked at tracks A, B, H, and I. They did not look at track C or D. Track C is very contentious. He asks if the drainage plan can be adjusted with more recent mapping. He is concerned about the underpasses and how they are only built for 10 year floods. Cindy Bedell, 662 W Willow St Bedell gives an overview of the importance of this land to Louisville. City staff mentioned that there is 69 acres of open space and this number is significantly lower than what the applicant had in their presentation. The lack of open space should be a 13