My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 10 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2010 10 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
2/4/2011 11:52:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2010 10 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 />October 14, 2010 <br />Page 6 of 18 <br /> <br />Pritchard, Brauneis and Sheets stated they had no questions at this time. <br />Members of the Public: <br />Lipton reminded the members of the public to keep their comments to three (3) <br />minutes. <br />Sherri Lancton, 781 W. Birch Court, stated the siren location has a huge impact <br />of the view of the Continental Divide. She stated her anger with not getting to <br />voice any opinion prior to the installation of the siren. The siren sticks out like a <br />sore thumb. She discussed health concerns, specifically possible hearing <br />damage. She expressed her surprise the OSAB group did not vote against this <br />location as well. She asked if a smaller in-fill siren had been considered. <br />Sean Daken, 799 W. Birch Court, stated his opposition to the ratification of the <br />SRU and siren location for the following reasons: no notice of the installation, <br />other neighborhoods were consulted, visual impact because of the loss of the <br />view, and the city has not done due diligence. He stated he would like to have a <br />discussion about the possible alternatives to another site location and another <br />siren type or method of emergency notifications. <br />Mike Scherer, 796 W. Birch Court, stated his opposition to the ratification of the <br />siren location. He stated the siren is located near a very popular walking path. <br />The siren is a huge eyesore as it stands now. He suggested the pole be moved <br />closer to the cottonwood trees <br />Scott Soelberg, 748 W. Birch Court, stated his agreement with the other public <br />comments. The volume of the siren is not necessary. Also, the siren should only <br />cover the direction of the City of Louisville and not project over the open farming <br />area. <br />Scott Reese, 795 W. Birch Court, stated his home is probably the most impacted <br />by the siren. The cost and inconvenience of relocating the siren is not a factor of <br />consideration. This is a City problem and should be taken care of by the City. He <br />stated the staff report fails to state issues for the entire neighborhood, not just the <br />six (6) effected homes. The walking trail is used by many people, not just those <br />living in the area. Everyone has been impacted by the siren location. He also <br />stated by the change in the view corridor it has affected the value of his home. <br />Loo asked Reese if he had a written appraisal regarding the affect of the home <br />value. <br />Reese stated he did not. <br />Loo stated there are several poles in the area and does one more have this <br />much affect. <br />Reese stated it does because it is right in the middle of the view corridor while <br />the others are offset. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.