Open Space Advisory Board Minutes 2021 02 10 REVISED

Home Browse Search

VII. Public Comments on Items Not of the Agenda Jessamine requested that these comments be unrelated to the Redtail Ridge project, since that will be covered later. A. Tamar Kranz 691 West Street: Ms. Kranz's comment regarded the Mayhoffer properties. She thought if the creekside land wasn't purchased by the city, maybe the city could restrict animal access to the creek to prevent erosional damage. She also requested that the board not vote tonight on the Redtail Ridge issue. Nathan isn't sure that the City can alter the current covenants on the Mayhoffer easements, but thought creek erosion from livestock was worth future discussion. B. VIII. Informational Item: McCaslin Underpass Art. Presented by: Kim Poletti, Louisville Cultural Council C. Ember introduced the topic by saying that having art in the underpass was part of the original design. Kim said the Louisville Cultural Council has a budget for public art, and they decided use some to place art at the McCaslin underpass. The concept is a mosaic depiction of underground wildlife. They are collaborating with the Open Space senior naturalist to get the biology correct. There will be eight total mosaic panels inside the underpass. Installation will most likely be over the summer. Hopefully, students can be part of the installation, depending on whether the plan is COVID-safe. They are hoping to put public art in multiple underpasses in the City either inside the tunnels or on the entryways. Peter asked whether there was sufficient lighting in the tunnel to actually see the art. Kim answered that the lighting level varies a lot by the time of day, and this had been a point of discussion by her board. Ember mentioned that Open Space staff are hoping to use the panels as for a springboard for education programming. The board was enthusiastic and happy about the project. IX. Action Item: Redtail Ridge General Development Plan Amendment. Presented by: Nathan Mosley, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Rob Zuccaro, Director of Planning A. Nathan said that this issue came before the board in December 2019. At the time, the board was asked to decide between two proposed public land dedications and on several proposals. The developers' initial proposal was not accepted by City Council, since that time, the developer, BrueBaukol, has purchased the property and submitted a new version of the application. B. Rob took over the discussion. He pointed out the features of the new application. He said that this new proposal does not require an amendment to Comprehensive Plan for this special district, unlike the previous proposal. He noted that PPLAB and OSAB are being asked to review the proposal now, before there is a Planning Commission meeting. OSAB will be asked to consult again before the final platting, and on any open space related variance requests or for issues that affect open space. C. Rob showed the previous dedication footprint recommended by the board. Then he showed the current plan. It has a similar development footprint, but lower density and no residential portion. The current land dedication is approximately 60 acres, and code would require only 40 acres. The proposal includes a trail connection that unites the two ends of the Rock Creek Trail, two underpasses, and other soft surface and concrete trails. The building height limit is three stories, but the developer could request height variances if buildings were to be more tightly clustered. Rob was of the opinion that this was a likely request. An example of tighter clustering would be parking garages vs. surface parking. This might allow more open space or undeveloped land. He emphasized that OSAB is being asked to comment on the public land dedication and on clustering. D. Geoff Baukol took over. He said one of their development goals was to maintain the park and open space dedication that had been previously discussed. Jordan Swisher and Geoff Baukol said they were available for board and citizen questions. E. Charles asked about the switch away from residential development to commercial development. Geoff said the biggest challenge to the previous plan was that the Comprehensive Plan didn't allow for residential development, and now the developers are asking for something that falls within the current City Comprehensive Plan. F. Anneliese asked whether commercial demand will change due to remote working trends due to COVID. Geoff answered that they are trying to address that with diverse commercial types and a focus on R&D-