My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2014 02 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2014 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2014 02 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:35 PM
Creation date
2/19/2014 8:36:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/4/2014
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2014 02 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> February 4, 2014 <br /> Page 18 of 28 <br /> did not feel 24 duplex homes would create a problem. She stated this is a quality <br /> builder and a great project. She supported the project. <br /> Mayor Pro Tern Dalton supported the 24-unit development. He did not feel there was a <br /> better use for the property. He stated the enrollments in the school district change. <br /> Council member Keany stated the issue is not with the schools, but the amendment to <br /> the general development plan. He felt there was a presumption by the developer and <br /> builder the City Council would simply approve this request. He stated satellite maps <br /> show the land has already been graded in expectation. He understood the neighbors' <br /> position of not wanting commercial development in their backyard, but noted <br /> commercial was part of the general development plan. He stated there may be an <br /> opportunity for commercial development and this residential development, if approved, <br /> would preclude any commercial use and he may be inclined to deny the request. <br /> Steve Erickson, Boulder Creek Neighborhoods, stated they never represented an <br /> expectation for this particular parcel to be for residential development. They did not <br /> enter into contract with the land owner until they were well along with the Steel Ranch <br /> single detached patio homes. With regards to the satellite photos, the north two parcels <br /> were used for construction staging and a construction trailer, which was later cleared off <br /> pursuant to their contract with the land owner. He stated the satellite photos may have <br /> looked like grading, but there was never any expectation of developing there. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> Gary Larson, 2189 Park Lane, Louisville, CO addressed age restriction and noted the <br /> 68 patio home community maintains a list of homeowners, with contact information, and <br /> they have parties once a month. He stressed there is a real sense of community. With <br /> respect to walkability, he lives less than one mile from Old Town and frequently walks <br /> downtown. <br /> Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Street, Louisville, CO stated the reason the <br /> commercial has not been developed on this property is because it is not suitable. He <br /> felt the single-family development in this location is more beneficial. He urged Council <br /> to support the project. <br /> Michael Perkins, 229 Vulcan Street, Louisville, CO stated there is no harm in waiting to <br /> see if the commercial site will develop. Once the houses are put in, no commercial will <br /> be allowed. <br /> Justin McClure stated the grading was completed with the initial development of Steel <br /> Ranch. He stated if the property was viable for office, office would be put in. In terms of <br /> waiting for commercial, he did not see it happening. He felt the benefits of the project <br /> outweigh any negatives. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.