Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 13, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />requirement. As far as recommendations, it really is just why you are approving <br />or denying it. <br />Osterman says her suggestion is to add language that notes that the <br />commission did not find the public land dedication in compliance given that it did <br />not dedicate enough public land north of Disk Drive. <br />City attorney Kelly asks for Osterman to reference a criterion for this <br />suggestion. <br />Osterman says this would be based in 16.16.010 section D and E. <br />Brauneis says that the applicant has submitted over the requirement for public <br />land dedication. <br />Krantz says that under section D, the proposal does not have enough clustering <br />and open space to meet this development. <br />Osterman says it is not in compliance given that there is a need for additional <br />open space because it is not preserving the vegetation, specifically in the <br />undeveloped area north of Disk Drive. <br />Osterman says some members of the commission feel that there should be a <br />larger public land dedication. She says that if they are able to add in reference to <br />section E. There is a need for additional open space for vegetation around Disk <br />Drive in order to preserve. <br />Moline mentions that he will not be supporting the resolution because he does <br />not agree with the paragraph A portion. He does believe that the proposal does <br />this. Denying it leaves us where we are now which is an empty land that is not <br />benefitting Louisville. Since the land is privately owned, with this denial, we are <br />incapable of ensuring the wildlife and prairie dogs are maintained and taken care <br />of as the public desires. <br />Krantz does not think this complies with the GDP and she does not think going <br />through a subdivision plat is the way to do it. <br />Osterman says this has been a tough application for her to review and she has <br />felt torn but she is recommending denial. She would like to see this parcel of land <br />developed. <br />Brauneis says if he though a vote to deny would guarantee us a better project, <br />then he would vote for denial. He lists items of how this proposal does meet code <br />and the criteria. He does not support this proposal without additional conditions <br />such as how it relates to the green building certification and the discussion <br />regarding the application paying for some of the road extension around Highway <br />36. A part of this process though is to not design it. He is concerned that denial <br />risks losing any of these benefits. <br />Zuccaro says because this is sounding like a tie, a resolution cannot end on a tie <br />and would have to be continued. <br />Brauneis moves and Krantz seconds a motion to Resolution 13, Series 2022 <br />recommending denial of the Redtail Ridge Preliminary and Final Plat: Redtail <br />Ridge Filing No. 1 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for a 389.10-acre <br />property, located northwest of US 36 and Northwest Parkway and Southeast of S <br />88th Street and Campus Drive. The denial with the following amendments: <br />0 Noncompliance with ConocoPhillips GDP <br />