Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 16 of 33 of the existing tree growth, the upper two stories of the planned Balfour residence will have virtually unimpeded views into my home, my garden, and that of my neighbors. I'd like you to take that into account. I think this is further exacerbated by Balfour choosing to place the majority of the three story structure on the north and east of the plot, furthest from their own campus and furthest from the major thoroughfare. I draw your attention to the City Code that was mentioned earlier, 17.28.120. 1 submit to you that the Balfour plan does not meet the spirit and intent of the code in the following ways: 1. In Section 4, for functional open space and preservation of the natural features including trees 2. In Section 6, in the maintenance of privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, families, and neighbors 3. In Section 10, in terms of landscaping of total site in terms of purpose, such a screening, suitability, and the effect on the neighborhood. I have been very surprised at the lack of outreach into the community by Balfour and their lack of willingness to have open dialogue with the community. I am stunned to learn this evening that they have not attempted to design within the limits of the height restrictions. I am, therefore, asking you to reject the planned application and refuse the height waiver in order to give us, the community, an opportunity to work with Balfour to do an appropriate senior living facility on that site. Pamela Forcey, 1331 Hecla Drive, Louisville, CO I have lived at the Lodge in independent living very happily for almost 12 years. At some point, I may realize I have to go to assisted living. If so, it would be very encouraging to think that I could go to a new state-of-the-art building and stay in this community. I hope it can go forward. Shirley Asche, 1855 Plaza Drive, #1002, Louisville, CO Like Pamela before me who has been at Balfour a couple more months than I, unlike where she has always lived at the Lodge, my husband and I went into one of the Cottages (we were one of the first tenants there). He left me in 2010 and I had to leave for a couple of years. I came back and asked to be at the Lodge. I am now down at the Villa in the assisted living. I can honestly say that I have slept around. When I knew I was going to have to go into assisted living, there was a brand new facility much nearer to where my daughter lives. I thought as much as I hated to leave Balfour, this would be much more convenient for my family. It was a new facility and everything sounded just great on paper. The second day I was there, my daughter wanted me to move out, and I kept saying, "Oh no, it can't be this bad." It wasn't like Balfour. I lasted two months and I pleaded to let me back into Balfour. I like Michael's idea of what he wants to do. I would really like to see this new assisted building go through. The thought behind it and the emotional output behind it cannot be overstated. I really mean that. Unfortunately, I would love to go past three minutes, but I will bow to your rule. Kerrie Merkel, 1849 Sweet Clover Lane, Louisville, CO I want to thank you for your work and service and for the opportunity to speak before you. I am here tonight to address my personal concerns regarding the proposed Balfour development. I live in one of the houses that will be directly behind the proposed building on the south side. In fact, some of the pictures you saw are from my fence line. We bought our house because it backs to the open space and to Hecla Lake. We also knew that when we bought our house, the land just to the north of us would be developed some day. What we didn't expect was that the future development would ignore existing building guidelines, specifically the 35' height limit. am not against change or development. In fact, I have been on the other side of this myself when we built our Montessori School in Erie. What I am against is a waiver of a requirement for a PUD without any concern for the greater public. My concerns echo those of my neighbors who will be speaking and I feel that the justifications for the height waiver are weak. I do not see any benefit to the common good. It is unclear to me how interrupting mountain views with a three story building benefits the greater public. I do not understand how a private courtyard or what is considered open space or a handful of mature trees which has yet to be defined or a 20' connection path to City trails really benefits the general public. I would argue that given the