City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 02 03

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes January 20, 2015 Page 8 of 18 the October 5th Kickoff meeting and noted there were a lot of comments relative to making the corridor more bike /pedestrian friendly, safer crosswalks and perhaps an underpass. He stated there was not much interest in building more high density units along the corridor. He addressed the citywide survey and felt it would be help refine the SWOT Analysis. He was disturbed by the pictures, which depicted high density development and asked the resident to choose the least worse option. He felt most of the residents want development and improvement, but do not at the expense of the small town character. He asked the following questions: How much development is too much? What is the right development? Progress and change mean different things to different people. He asked the Council to pay close attention to the citizens as well as the large land owners and business owners. Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce Street, Louisville, CO addressed two items on the SWOT negative column: Weakness "the aesthetic appearance of corridor, and Threats "lack of community consensus on purpose of corridor ". She stated at the kick -off meeting out of 277 comments only 6 referred to "appearance ". During the walkability tour comments were made about the narrow sidewalks, lack of trees on the south side, trail connectivity and a median between the sidewalk and street. She felt those items could be easily fixed and should be considered a major do -over. She did not feel there was a broad split in the community on the purpose of South Boulder Road. The business owners are not asking for a major do -over along South Boulder Road. She stressed the need for business input, but not at the expense of desires of the public. She found it very difficult to read the signage for the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan and requested better signage with more contrast in the color schemes. Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO saw a weakness and threat to the process, which is the fact more people live in apartments than attended all the meetings on the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan. He stresses their voices are absent. He requested the Mayor and City Council reach out to these residents and make them a part of the process. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Council member Loo asked for clarification of the weakness "Conformity to community values ". Planner II Robinson explained it is in the core values defined in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained there was a general feeling the South Boulder Road corridor did not conform well to those core values. Council member Loo stated a lot of people who live on the corridor did not attend the meetings. She felt it would be unfair for Council to define conformity as community values. She stated there are things valued in the community, which do not meet the definition of conformity. Council member Leh agreed and noted during the meeting there was discussion of the subject of conformity with the community values. He inquired about this debate and