City Council Minutes 1984 02 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2/7/84 Page -16- didn't ask for in the first place. It just showed her once again that there is nothing e:Lse for us to do but to ask Council to repeal this ordinance as it stands. She wished to make 2 comments to the current plan which some people think is the best we can get. Ms. Bostwick stated she had 2 main objections - when the plan was first presented there were some major concerns about the access to Louisville from the free-way. There were some concerns about the movement of traffic; concerns about the major access highway; the east side of the development. The comment made at the first hearing was that the change in the traffic pattern was to accomodate the retail/office people rather than the major flow of traffic which would be using that interchange to enter the City of Louisville. She saw nothing different about the traffic flow pattern in the new plan - still saw it as a real bottle neck. It was stated that the highway would be agreeable to the eye because of the strip of "open space buffer adjoining it". Ms. Bostwick did not like to use the word open space as a corridor of a highway, thought it. served no purpose as open space whatsoever. Th.e second major concern she had was the aesthetics of the location of things. To hear it was totally inacceptable the place- ment of any corporate building on the open space on the Mesa. She felt all we had to do to see what that does aesthetically was to look at the newly constructed building next to the Church on the top of South Boulder hill. Corporate industries need tc> be able to be discreet about advertising it:s location and its prestige. There will bE~ as Neodata shows us now before it is occupied lights day and night, traffic and we don't see the lovely landscape that is bE~hind it; we see building and concrete. So she saw no reason for anything to dis- rupt the appealing site for an open space tYiat should be there for all citizens of Louisville to enjoy. It was her opinion tYiat nothing should be built to distract fx-om the physical beauty of the landscape. When the Centennial Valley plan came be- fore the City we were led that it would be so inconspicuous that you wouldn't even notice it as you drove by.