City Council Minutes 2003 12 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Louisville City Council Meeting December 2, 2003 Page 10 of 22 affordable housing oppommifies to make a cultural center work. She voiced her appreciation of Council's support of the arts. Annelise Cummings, 795 W. Pinyon Way, Louisville, CO, urged the Council to allow the citizens of Louisville to fully participate in the development of a vision for the City. She stated to allow the developer to envision Louisville's future would set a dangerous precedence. She addressed the 80-acre parcel and the prohibition of residential, and stated the comp plan was written in the context the remainder of the property would be Industrial. She voiced her belief that residential was never allowed in conjunction with Industrial zoning. She urged Council to deny the comp plan amendment. Christina Richmond, 306 Chestnut Street, Louisville, CO, stated she has lived in Louisville for 1½ years, and is employed by STK. She chose Louisville because of the strategic planning of the developments for commercial, residential and services. She stated her nine-year-old son bicycles to the library and across town to viSit school friends. She voiced her concern relative to the fiscal impact and her desire for STK to be successful. She urged Council to ask STK to include members of the public and arrive at a win/win solution. She noted she was not against growth, and voiced her support of the proposed Highway 42 redevelopment and light rail. Nancy Sauer, 401 W Spruce Street, Louisville, CO voiced her concern relative to the changes to the comp plan. She disagreed with the applicant's opinion there is no significant change in the comp plan amendment submitted in May. She agreed with previous speakers a satellite city is not desirable. Billy O'Donnell, 247 Hoover, Louisville, CO, stated he is employed as an engineer. He voiced his concern for the infrastructure of the development. He noted increasing the City's population would impact water resources and traffic. Nell Schoeler, representing STK, addressed the comments made on the amendment to the comp plan and noted the majority were related to the zoning. She stated the comp plan provides a general framework for the development of the property and discussion of StorageTek's plan for the property, is not appropriate at this time. She addressed the buffer between STK and Paradise Lane and stated there is a significant buffer between the primary development and Paradise Lane. She stated there have been references to the developer making recommendation and suggestions for changes. She noted the applicant is STK, the owner of the property, and not the developer. She emphasized that STK has the right to come forward with a request to amend the comp plan. She stated there have been implications the Planning Commission's procedures were improperly conducted. She referred to a letter from STK's legal representative that states there is no collusion between the Planning Commission and STK. She noted STK has done much to include the public in the planning process. STK participated for seven months in the South Sub- Area Task Force. She noted STK extended invitation to every household in Louisville to 10