City Council Minutes 2012 05 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes May 1, 2012 Page 13 of 17 The improvement of the housing products will have apartments facing apartments. They are making attempts to reduce the mass by 20 feet. The key aspects of the site plan is to maintain the existing east-west connection behind the development; remove existing sidewalk and put in a tree line and a new 8 foot sidewalk. Between two buildings along South Boulder Road they propose an outdoor area with water feature. Building C will bring the structure closer to the street to hide the parking structure. The added third story will add more open space area. Building B is a three story structure, which reduces down to two stories. Building A is the main building, and will be home to the amenities of the project, visitor parking, rental offices, pedestrian friendly walkways and landscaping. At the intersection of South Boulder Road and Centennial, the building will be set further back from the street and increased to three stories. The Village townhomes will be across the residential building. In summary, Mr. Mulhem stated because Safeway has reduced the price of their property, the new proposal brings forward reduced density. COUNCL COMMENTS Council member Jasiak asked for clarification on the parking. Mr. Mulhem stated all the - parking will be in one structure and visitors' parking will be at Building A. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton asked how many people attended the recent neighborhood meeting conducted by the developer. It was noted there was approximately 40 residents in attendance. PUBLIC COMMENT Chuck Donnelly, 2366 Senator Court, Louisville, CO voiced his concern that this project would create a bedroom community. He was concerned the City staff was advocating the developer's point of view and noted there is not any contrary evidence. He asked Council who will advocate for the public. Brent Wilson, 1955 Sunnyside Circle, Louisville, CO voiced his concern over the traffic this project will bring. He stated his understanding if the zoning permits a certain project, there is nothing the opposing public can do. He asked the Council to make a decision in the best interest of the city. James Keener, 171 Jackson Drive, Louisville, CO stated this proposal is different from what was presented to the Planning Commission. He suggested remanding to the Planning Commission. He disagreed with the parking ratio of the residential units as presented by the traffic expert and stated the grocery store analysis was only put into the equation to make the residential traffic counts look better. He felt the SRU sidesteps the established laws of the City. He asked who is looking out for the public. COUNCIL COMMENTS