My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 04 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 04 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2021 8:41:13 AM
Creation date
4/12/2010 1:25:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 04 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 11, 2010 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br />Sherry Angel, 288 Lois Dr., Louisville stated the 95' height request seems to be a <br />lot but she supports the project because of the benefits the project will bring to <br />Louisville. <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Dr., Louisville stated his support of the <br />project as well as the requested height waivers. <br />Seth Sovak (unknown address) discussed his interest to encourage <br />ConocoPhillips to include an edible landscape on campus which would allow the <br />food venders to use the fresh produce grown on the campus. <br />Lipton asked for additional public comment. Hearing no closed the public <br />comment portion of the hearing. <br />Lipton requested the City Attorney discuss the miconcerns identified <br />earlier in the meeting. <br />Light stated ConocoPhillips is required to p - certification o ntacting those <br />with interest in the mineral rights. They h •rovided the required tification. <br />They should continue to work with the Le -'s of the mineral rights .t is a <br />private matter. <br />Sheets asked for a clarification of objections in - letters received in the meeting <br />packet. <br />Light stated the letters request to withhold fi <br />Lipton inquired about <br />Light stated the w <br />17.28.110 and <br />that provide what <br />clarification iat the <br />waiver <br />Pla <br />She. ad questions regarding the Paradise Lane property owners and the <br />extens •f Campus Drive. <br />ers being req <br />ste <br />at a al. <br />e addressed at final review. He cited LMC <br />cific sections of the Louisville Municipal Code <br />o comp with. He continued with a <br />an (GDP) does not authorize height <br />Manning s <br />contracts wit <br />with these purchase <br />ons to Staff and A licant: <br />five (5) of the eight (8) property owners had negotiated sale <br />nocQ ,fillips. The extension of Campus Drive would be possible <br />those properties. <br />Paul Betzer, Consultant, PTRRC, stated the properties not purchased were not <br />necessary to develop Campus Drive and since they could not reach a purchase <br />agreement ConocoPhillips did not continue the purchase negotiations. <br />Pritchard asked Stevens (Louisville Parks & Recreation Director) questions <br />regarding the 12% land dedication and how the development fits with the master <br />plan. <br />Stevens stated the need for additional discussion and the consideration of a <br />combination of land and cash -in -lieu payment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.