Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 18, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br /> <br />Regular Business – Public Hearing Items: <br /> <br /> Resolution No. 25, Series 2010 <br /> – Emergency Siren Location – A <br /> <br />public hearing to consider City Staff’s comprehensive review of <br />possible locations for an audible outdoor warning system (emergency <br />siren equipment) and to recommend to the Louisville City Council <br />whether or not to approve and ratify the current placement of such a <br />system at the City of Louisville North Water Treatment Plant, 1955 <br />Washington Ave. Case No. 10-023-UR. (Continued from October 21, <br />2010) <br /> <br /> Applicant: City of Louisville, Public Safety Department <br /> <br /> Representative: Troy Russ, Director of Planning and Building Safety and Bruce Goodman, <br />Chief of Police <br /> <br /> Owner: City of Louisville <br /> <br /> Case Manager: Troy Russ, Director of Planning and Building Safety <br />Public Notice Certification: <br />This was a continued business item; therefore no additional public notice was <br />required. <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: <br /> Per the City of Louisville Code of Ethics, O’Connell recused herself and left <br />Council Chambers. (Note: (added by staff) O’Connell is the chair person of the <br />Mesa Village HOA and her home is one of those impacted by the current location <br />of the siren.) She also read a letter dated November 16, 2010 regarding an email <br />sent as reply to an email received from City Manager, Malcolm Fleming, dated <br />November 11, 2010. Pritchard moved and Loo seconded a motion to enter the <br />O’Connell letter into public record. Motion passed by voice vote. <br />Lipton, Loo and Brauneis stated they had visited the site. <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Russ reminded the Commission the business item is a continuation from the <br />October 14, 2010 public hearing. He continued with the review of the project <br />description and project overview. <br />Russ provided the following summary of the reevaluation: <br />Purpose and Need <br /> <br /> <br />Measures of Success <br /> <br /> <br />Alternative Locations: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />North Water Treatment – existing location <br /> <br /> <br />North Water Treatment – HOA Option #1 <br /> <br /> <br />North Water Treatment – HOA Option #2 <br /> <br /> <br />Potential Location – Option #3 <br /> <br />The following table provides the detailed alternative analysis. <br />Alternative Coverage Availability Exposure Access Views Environment <br />Existing Location No conflicts Accessible None <br /> 83% City 200’ clear 6 Mtn. <br /> <br /> 99% Res. Except Park/Trail 4 Other <br />HOA Option #1 Utility Improvements  <br /> 83% City 200’ clear 4 Mtn. Unstable soils <br />conflicts needed <br /> <br /> 99% Res. Except Park/Trail 4 Other Tree impacts <br />HOA Option #2 Utility Improvements  <br /> 83% City 200’ clear 3 Mtn. Unstable soils <br />conflicts needed <br /> <br /> 99% Res. Except Park 4 Other Tree impacts <br />Potential Location No conflicts Accessible None <br /> 83% City 200’ clear 6 Mtn. <br />Option #3 <br /> <br /> 99% Res. Except Park/Trail 4 Other <br /> <br />