Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
City Council <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> June 5, 2012 <br /> Page 7 of 16 <br /> bedrooms and parking between his proposal and current zoning. He clarified there <br /> were some items they might consider changing but in terms of total square footage, <br /> they had figured the rate of return closely. <br /> Council member Jasiak addressed the breakdown of units and senior housing. Mr. <br /> Loftus stated "echo boomers" (persons born in the 80's and 90's) were statistically the <br /> residents in developments like the proposed one. In speaking about his proposal with <br /> the senior community in Louisville it was favorably received. He compared a Boulder <br /> community (29th Street) and asked Mike Mulhern to present a study. It broke down the <br /> renter demographic. Active Seniors —25%, Empty nesters —20%, 26-40 yr. olds — <br /> 55%. He stated the Louisville project is aimed at persons who could afford to own but <br /> prefer to rent. When the project was proposed, they consciously left out a lot of retail <br /> due to the empty retail space in Louisville and did not want to compete with the Village <br /> shops or the downtown area. <br /> Council member Keany asked if the rents would be sustainable and if more retail on the <br /> first floor would be considered. Mr. Loftus answered no to more retail and that he <br /> wanted the project in a core area. Rents were achievable because of the quality finishes <br /> and target renter. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Dalton asked about adjusting parking spaces. Life experience led him <br /> to question the numbers. Mr. Loftus said it couldn't be done on the surface, but they <br /> could see if more room could be found. <br /> Council member Jasiak asked to readdress senior accommodations. Mr. Mulhern <br /> stated they have another project where they incorporated pedestrian bridges between <br /> buildings and considered a bridge between Building A and B. One building would not <br /> be dedicated to seniors, but could build in amenities such as a library room or spaces to <br /> gather. This was an opportunity to better mold the product to the community. <br /> Council member Loo thanked staff. She felt staff had the best interest of Louisville in <br /> mind. She thanked residents for speaking out on this project. She shared the following <br /> thoughts on the project: <br /> - agreed with the idea of remanding this back to Planning Commission <br /> - comfortable with this being a Special Review Use <br /> - the traffic would not be an issue <br /> - there were neighbors who were in favor of this project who had not spoken up <br /> - felt the City had not been lax about trying to bring in retail to the area <br /> - project would be beneficial to the City <br /> - can't have successful retail without customers, this would bring customers <br /> - needs parking spaces for each bedroom, plus spaces for commercial <br /> - concemed about residential so close to South Boulder Road <br /> - trash receptacle should be moved <br /> - public space between commercial pads should be something special <br /> - found the applicant's argument compelling concerning the need for this product <br />