Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 20

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 13 Tamar Krantz, 691 West Street, stated that the plan did not meet the PCZD requirements and she did not believe that it would support the general welfare of Louisville through employment because most of the employees would not live in Louisville. She noted that air quality issues were not addressed and that the plan could not really be commented on without more details. She made the following suggestions: height waivers should require additional public space and not an increase in FAR; remove that fencing is allowed if you allow an exchange in the form of private space; if parking structures did not count toward FAR then there needed to be language that the impervious surface area will be increased by the same amount that the garage area was decreased. She requested binding language regarding sustainability and noted that the language "implemented if commercially viable" meant nothing. She liked the ideas overall but requested further commitments. Jon Mihaly, 1018 Arapahoe Circle, asked why the GDP amendment allowed an increase in commercial space especially when there were already commercial vacant spaces that were hard to fill. He didn't think the economic goals were feasible and he thought the work -from -home movement would have an impact. He would feel better with anchor tenants but the proposal was entirely speculative at this point. He added that there needed to be more enforceable provisions. Isaac Sendros, 100 Health Park Drive, stated that he was CEO of Avista, Louisville's largest employer. He was in support and noted that Avista had access issues; with school traffic it would take over 20 minutes to travel half a mile, twice a day five days a week. Campus Drive improvements would benefit the community. Overall, employees at Avista were excited about the development. Jennifer Singer Rupp, 466 Muirfield Circle, did not support the multiple tenants planned and noted that there were no initial tenant partners. She stated that the viewshed coming from the east was a critical one for entry into Louisville. She voiced support for the rural classification and wildlife protection and having public land on the site. Josh Cooperman, 216 Griffith Street, stated that he was not opposed to development at the location but was opposed to this development. The development was not warranted as there was not a need for more office and commercial space and it was wasteful to redevelop open land when there were vacant spaces in the city. The proposal met the letter but not the stated vision of the Comprehensive Plan and he was worried that big box stores could go up as they were currently allowed in that location. He stated that the sustainability commitments were inadequate, specifically with an objective to reduce greenhouse gases which he didn't think the current proposal would actually meet. Even the LEED Silver was not clearly required. He added that the footprint was too big. Cyndi Bedell asked the Commission to vote no, as it was the last opportunity to maintain that viewshed at the entrance to the City. She thought that there could be reasonably -sized development on the parcel while still maintaining more land. She thought the traffic projections added too many vehicles to the area and that residents would have increased traffic danger including kids at the local schools. Michiko Christiansen, 543 Adams Avenue, said there was not enough open space in the city and this should be a conservation or open space use. She warned that they would become like Denver, Westminster, and Thornton, where residents were forced to travel to other places to access open space. Carlos Hernandez, stated that he had worked with Bill Fox before and, when initially approached to work on this project, he had said no. Once he had gotten to know the people