Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2012 Page 11 of 14 more interesting pedestrian amenities at ground level of the site. The key point of the massing of the buildings is to hide the parking structure. The massing is also dictated by the natural access points of the structure. The site plan creates a sense of community with the use of Victorian contemporary design with brick and stucco finish. The use of stucco on the small buildings will give a more pedestrian friendly feel to the site. The remainder of the presentation included a narration of sketch up model of the site and fly through. Peterson discussed additional project details including the interior design features. NOTE: 8:50 PM, Lipton declared a 5 minute break. NOTE: 9:00 PM, Lipton called the meeting back to order and moved to the public comment portion of the meeting. Public Comment: Bill Staton, 2396 McKinley Ave, Louisville and a 35 year resident of Louisville stated his opposition to the project for the following reasons: high density and already have townhomes, condos and mobile homes in the area. Removing retail will create potential for Louisville to become a bedroom community. John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, Louisville stated is opposition to the project. He stated he would have copies of his presentation available at the end. He stated the major driver of the fiscal impact is services. The project will define Louisville. There will be a major impact on existing services without additional public dedication. Leary submitted a memo for inclusion in the public record. Terry Nelson, 2252 Crown Circle, Louisville stated his opposition to the project. He stated the project is too big and too dense. He asked if the city would need more water resources to serve the site. Devona Sayler, 2253 Crown Circle, Louisville is a 30 year Louisville resident. Louisville is losing its small town feel. The area will be claustrophobic. She stated Coal Creek is an elementary school and were the other schools checked for enrollment and service to the children. He asked if parking is added to Centennial Drive what will happen to the snow route. James Keener, 171 Jackson Drive stated his opposition to the project for the following reasons: 1) character of the project – 194 single people each drive a car, what about guest parking 2) why aren’t these condo’s instead of rental (renters don’t care about community) and 3) not in character with the rest of the city. Annie Hughes, 1405 Garfield Ct stated the presentation was too long. She discussed the following points: very dense area already, too many additional cars, no planned bus stops, bike and pedestrian path is too short, deceleration lane will take out existing trees, city will lose money, no additional fees for City services, area is zoned commercial, SRU circumvents zoning process, area should remain retail and the small town charm will be lost. Valerie Hackman, 2282 Crown Circle, discussed the following: traffic is already complicated; our current population count shows a decrease of 1,000 people, who is going to rent these units if we are losing population; is it possible Safeway is