Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 17 of 33 choice, the public would rather keep their mountain views, see a building built within development guidelines surrounded by existing mature trees, and continue to enjoy the nature preserve that is Hecla Lake. Granting a waiver for a local business to stay competitive certainly does not fit within the spirit of the guidelines. On a personal level, I am extremely concerned about the landscaping that is proposed to be around this building. This land is currently very densely populated with mature trees. On the south edge of the property which is essentially just over the fence of my backyard, there is a line of mature cottonwood trees that we have been talking about. I want to make note that those trees are 35' tall. These already existing trees would really help to provide much needed privacy from the proposed building as well as help to screen any new lighting or headlights of cars driving in the parking lot that will soon be shining in my bedroom window. I am pleased to hear about the latest landscape developments. I wish this would have been communicated with us and we could have had conversations about it. I urge you to require that these trees be included in the development plan. As I said before, I am not against business development. In fact, I love the idea of having senior citizens as my neighbors. I love the conversations I currently have with them when I walk around the lake. I would have appreciated the opportunity to work with Balfour prior to this point in time. In fact, I am confident that a common ground can be found if we are given time to work together. However, the lack of outreach thus far is disheartening. I ask that you please take these concerns as well as my neighbors and reject the application for the PUD at this time. Moline says the applicant has portrayed some of the height needs in order to make the buildings more architecturally pleasing. What are your thoughts? Would you rather see that 35' high cap with the building has a flat roof or something that extends above and has a little more architectural perspective to it? K. Merkel says of course, I want to keep the mountain views and I love what they've done so far in efforts. I know they have been working with Staff to lower the end of the building that is right outside my back door. I am super grateful for that. But I don't understand why the highest points of those buildings can't be pushed to the front towards Plaza Drive and to keep it away from the residents, the single family homes would be more ideal. Tim Merkel, 1849 Sweet Clover Lane, Louisville, CO First, I'd like to thank you for all the hard work and the long nights and all that the Staff and Commission do. We have already seen you make great progress on this project without us getting involved. I am excited by all the development that is happening in and around our neighborhood, and I look forward to having senior citizens as our neighbors. It beats the heck out of a frat house. We love the senior citizens but that is not what this is about. We always expected this property to be developed. However, I do not support Balfour's current plans and this application. Specifically, I am opposed to the height waiver to would allow the building that is 50% higher than the CDDSG allows and 50% higher than any other building adjacent to Hecla Lake. I want to make that distinction. We have been talking about the residences, but there are thousands of people who use Hecla Lake Trail who will be negatively impacted by this. I think that is more important at this point than the residential impact. Sloped roofs, interesting architecture, and trees won't disguise the fact that this building does not have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area which is one of the criteria in Section 28.28.120. The applicant's primary justification for a height waiver is that the plan contains 47% open space; however, this number is very misleading. Over 9,000 sf of the open space is contained with an inner courtyard that is not visible from Plaza Drive on the west, Hecla Lake on the north, or the North End community on the east. The only people who will benefit from this inner courtyard are the future Balfour residents. If you remove this 9,000 sf courtyard from the open space calculation, the new number is reduced to within 7% of what the CDDSG requires. This is hardly enough justification for disregarding the CDDSG and the character surrounding the lake and the community. If these plans are approved, the beauty of Hecla Lake will be diminished simply so that Balfour can lease a handful of additional units that have a view of Hecla Lake and the mountains. I would jump at the opportunity to collaborate with the developer; however, there has been no proactive communication with me or my neighbors. In order to give the developer