My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2016 02 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2016 02 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:25 AM
Creation date
2/11/2016 3:20:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
OSABPKT 2016 02 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes (Continued) - Public Comments <br />January 13th 2015 <br />January 9, 2016 Public Comment Steve Rasor, 409 Majestic View Drive <br />Compliments to the City on its 2016 Open Government and Ethics Pamphlet. The Public Involvement <br />section beginning on page seven is particularly appreciated. If reaching out to the community -at -large <br />had occurred when the off -leash area was conceived, a more appropriate location may have been <br />selected and we wouldn't need to entreat the city to relocate it. A flyer, knock on a door, postcard, <br />anything would have been appreciated. <br />As part of its site plan review for residential construction, Boulder County sends postcards to all <br />residences within fifteen hundred feet of a proposed project. Several letters of opposition were sent <br />to the County when I was seeking permission for construction of my home. My plans were approved <br />but because I wanted to be a good neighbor, I went back to the drawing board to reduce the <br />building's footprint by almost a thousand square feet. I lost economy of scale and the extra space I <br />wanted, but it was the right thing to do for residents who were concerned about their views. So after <br />much deliberation, I made it happen. I sought County permission this summer for ground mounted <br />solar panels but the most efficient location was denied primarily because the panels might have <br />detracted from the views of people using Davidson Mesa open space. The off -leash area has had an <br />adverse impact on the natural features and neighborhood character of the homes nearest it. We <br />respectfully request that we be given the same consideration for our views that the city and county <br />desires for Louisville's residents. <br />It's a fact that the enormous amount of property taxes paid by those of us impacted by the dog run <br />don't go to Louisville, but a big chunk go to Public Schools which includes the five in Louisville. I <br />personally have been lucky enough to have either lived in Louisville or in the County for thirty -eight <br />years, so I've been shopping, patronizing restaurants, and contracting services in Louisville for almost <br />four decades. That adds up to a lot of sales taxes for the City. I don't know if this carries any weight <br />with you, but I sincerely hope some of this history positively influences you to set a goal for selecting a <br />relocation site that is located far from residential property lines. <br />Finally, I suggest the Parks' and /or Public Work's time and budget be saved by allowing a restoration <br />effort to take place before a remediation project. Any work involving heavy equipment may further <br />compact the soil, kill more vegetation, and may be unnecessary, overreaching, and a bigger drain on <br />the city's budget than reseeding. Thank you for your time and consideration. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.