Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 23, 2022 <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />the traffic? With the concerns brought up by the public work, does this warrant a more <br />depth traffic study? <br />Ritchie says that considering the proximity to Highway 42, it would not be unwarranted <br />to have Public Works look at this study more closely. <br />Zuccaro provides the commissioners options in regards to the traffic. One option is <br />asking the applicant to provide a traffic comparison with the original Delo Lofts <br />application and then deliberate on the difference. Another option is asking the applicant <br />to provide a traffic study that not only looks at their development but the surrounding <br />properties. City staff would not conduct that study but we would review the results and <br />make sure that we are comfortable with the assumptions and conclusions. <br />Moline asks if staff can confirm that the public land dedication has already been met for <br />the site. <br />Ritchie says that is correct. This development is not required to do public land <br />dedication. <br />Zuccaro mentions that under the PUD code, Section 27.28.80, the commission and <br />City Council can request additional land dedication. <br />Discussion by Commissioners: <br />Hoefner says regarding the outlot alignment issue, what do we do with it and is now the <br />time? <br />Moline mentions that our current traffic guidance is that the Caledonia St extension is <br />not part of this consideration. Our Public Works Department is comfortable without that <br />extension. He wants to make sure that if the development occurs to the east, it will align <br />property. <br />Brauneis says what hinders them is because the other portion of the property is owned <br />by someone else. <br />Krantz says if we decided to ask for more information on the traffic study we could, but <br />from what I understand from Mrs. Ritchie is that there is nothing from Caledonia St that <br />would prevent it from going further. <br />Ritchie says a new traffic study could look at whether the Caledonia connection is <br />needed at this time in order to support this development. <br />Krantz says if we go with the option to ask for a traffic study, she likes the idea of <br />looking at the Caledonia connection. <br />Howe says he is concerned about the third, fourth, and fifth SRU criteria. As you <br />increase in density, we want to maintain the lifestyle that current citizens have. We need <br />to balance that with amenities, transportation, and safety. He mentions that the entire <br />area may need a traffic study, not just this development. <br />Hoefner agrees with Commissioner Howe. There are traffic and safety issues that exist <br />today. He is not convinced that this particular development will add a dramatic increase <br />in cars. He wonders if they should send this to City Council urging them to evaluate the <br />current traffic. <br />Brauneis mentions that this development will have 18 additional bedrooms then what <br />has already been approved. Knowing that when the original development was <br />approved, it was evaluated as a medium density, walkable neighborhood. He wonders if <br />the additional 18 bedrooms is the straw that is breaking the camel's back and makes <br />the area unlivable. <br />Moline mentions the importance of inclusionary housing and creating more space for <br />people to live in Louisville. He appreciates when applicants are looking for ways to <br />