Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br />CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement <br />November 30, 2009 <br />24. Ken Olson, AIA <br />Architect and Town Planner <br />Mr. Olson writes in favor of the proposal. He notes enhanced job density, quality homes near <br />quality jobs, use of design standards including public open spaces, and improved views for <br />surrounding properties. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />27. Richard C. Jordison, AIA, LEED AP <br />Writes against the proposal. Calls it, ".. an awful prospect." <br />Response: Thank you for your comment. <br />28. William E. Hummel <br />Recommends project should be denied. Notes several reasons for his recommendation. <br />Response: Thank you for your comment. <br />32. Barbara Keller <br />Ms. Keller comments on off-site impacts from odor (StockPot) and aircraft noise. <br />Response: Please refer to previous comments and responses at 14, Chapter 1, and 15 and 18 in <br />Chapter 3. Regarding more general statements that generally question this proposal, thank you <br />for your comments. <br />33. Lean Roe <br />Ms. Roe asks for detailed information about construction parameters and parking requirements <br />for the project on both sides of Glenwood Avenue. She wants to know, ".. how the proposed <br />project will match the community." "What actions are planned in order to mitigate and <br />completely curtail the tremendous impact of the CEMEX proposal upon the existing community, <br />including increased traffic flows and negative behaviors, which this type of housing attracts (i.e. <br />Casino Road)?" She expresses concern, "this type" of housing will lead to slum housing. And <br />she asks, "What was the outcome from the community's suggestion that the property should be <br />zoned for a 4 -year university, or support future airport growth, or remain as it is under its current <br />zoning codes?" <br />Chapter 1 — General Comments <br />