Planning Commission Minutes 2015 01 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2015 Page 17 of 23 Tengler says that his concern of little too specific in conforming in matching. This better reflects his view. In the email from Mr. Vinall, he suggested that "conforms" is a better choice of words. Russell says that "reflects" is a good term because it acknowledges the fact that we cannot control everything and we cannot commit to everything that we are asked to do. Pritchard states he likes the word "reflects" as well. Staff has found an appropriate word. Russell discusses a)b) Allow flexibility for changes in market requirements, design trends, and creativity in design. He states that "allows flexibility to respond to changes in market requirements". Tengler and Pritchard agree with the changes Russell. Robinson says he will change the wording to "allows flexibility to respond to changes." Principle 4 had no changes. Principle 5 with additions. No comments. Principle 6 with additions. Public Comment: Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce Street, Louisville, CO 80027. She discusses the incorporation of the public input as it pertains to the Small Area Plan and the SWOT report. She attended the public hearing for SOBORO on October 8, 2014. • Question #1 - How do you use South Boulder Road corridor and its surrounding properties and amenities. How would you like to use it in the future? Q • Question #2 — What do you think the core community values identified in the Comp Plan along the corridor and as the corridor evolves, how do you think the core community values should be incorporated into it? She has papers of handwritten responses which she typed up so they are more readable for the public and Boards and different departments of Louisville. There were 178 responses to question #1 and 99 to question #2. She has reviewed the comments concerning the appearance of the corridor as being a negative or a weakness as reported in the SWOT. From the 277 responses, she found only 6 comments pertaining to appearance and they listed more or better landscaping, gardens, preservation of trees in open space. 2 of the 6 said "not the most attractive" and "want it to be a more beautiful part of the neighborhood." She fails to see how these few comments on appearance were given so much weight in the SWOT. She made a compilation of the five most mentioned comments by the public on these two questions. It was a total of 80 of the 277 responses which seemed to be in general agreement with the Planning Department's conclusions about lack of bike and pedestrian friendliness, South Boulder Road as a north -south barrier that is difficult to traverse especially for students, creation of a small town feel on the road, and desire for fiscal responsibility and low density along the corridor. She is confused about the lack of community consensus on desires. There is a lot of information and she would encourage the PC review of this document which is included at the end of the PC agenda for December 2014. She gives her input on the changing of the word "conform to public opinion" as far as proposing changes along the corridor. She thinks "strongly reflects" or "consistent with" public opinion are good alternatives as we are a government of and by the people and citizen wishes for our community must be incorporated into City decisions. At this public meeting in October, she heard Staff say that the font of the signage on the announcements which are now again on South Boulder Road is too small. People have