Planning Commission Minutes 2015 01 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2015 Page 19 of 23 Russell states that the presence of the "bullet point" will have an incredible impact on the outcome of this plan and dialogue. Part of the discussion from the December 2014 PC meeting was the element of what is the predominant purpose of this corridor; is it a highly efficient transportation corridor or should it be considered differently in terms of community asset. Michael Menaker, 1827 W Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO Menaker states he is a strong proponent of the apartments being built at North Main, the ones soon to be built behind Alfalfa's, and the proposed projects at Coal Creek Station. More importantly, those buildings are fully occupied. There are a lot of citizens living in the apartments who have voted not only with their present vote but with their dollars in support of some of the changes. The truth is that people always want progress but nobody wants change. There is no progress without change. In changing demographics and the need to provide and be inclusive for a new generation whose goals and values are different, then the bullet point is "right on the money". He thinks it is a good thing. He argues that the diversity of opinion and mobile points of view make a better discussion. Brauneis asks Russ about "who started this process" and about the phrase "high urban corridor". Do you have comments to speak to how the process unfolded. There may be semantic issues about the use of the words; urban density may be different in your use of them than what people perceive them to be. Russ states that there was conflict and difficulty in getting projects through the process. It was not good for the community or the landowner or the prospective investor in the City. Having a process where there is no consensus and 18 months of review is not good. If Louisville wants to see people invest in the City, the process needs to be cleaned up. Staff saw a conflict in policies. There were economic development goals coming from business retention and development committee. The LRC and City Council were seeing community preservation goals from the same entities. Zoning did not reflect those values. To address this, Staff is going through an update of the Comp Plan. The City of Louisville of today is not the City of Louisville of 1990's or 1980's. During that time, the city was in expansion mode with lots of land to annex, and policies were based on expansion. The City quickly ran out of expansive spaces. The annexation seen tonight is the last significant annexation the City will do. Our policies, however, assume we will be annexing green fields, and the policies did not align with our values. Staff hears about pedestrian challenges and traffic safety challenges, but they were not aligning with actual solutions. The Comp Plan tried to create a different language based on character. The Comp Plan is a vision document, not a zoning document. Staff used "centers, corridors, and neighborhoods" which are activities of the city and tried to define them into character. The characters in the Comp Plan language were "urban, suburban, and rural". Rural is open space; suburban is Davidson Mesa, Via Appia, and McCaslin, and urban is downtown Louisville. The word "urban" is an emotional word but in its essence, it is people living in a town. Old Town Louisville is very "urban"; it is not dense but it is urban. It has alleys, buildings are close to the street, there are interconnected streets and the pedestrian sidewalks are all connected. The McCaslin corridor is designated "urban center" because it is an economic center. Development along Via Appia is different than development in Downtown Louisville but the zoning did not reflect it. Staff is identifying what the community wants the buildings to look and feel like on South Boulder Road, hence the community survey. Sid Vinall, 544 Leader Circle, Louisville, CO On the input from the large stakeholders on South Boulder Road, there were comments in the Small Area Plan that were on the website. He cannot find it. Pritchard says it is on page 136 in the December 2014 minutes PC packet. Vinall wonders if the comments were ever made at a public meeting?