Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 19 of 33 elements versus a farm. I do wish as a person who lives in the neighborhood, I would have been consulted in some respect as to the height or told about the development. We knew it was going to be developed; we just didn't know it was going to be so tall. With the trees and the paths and things that go around it, it would be so much nicer to be able to see the mountains clearly without the rooflines. It would be interesting if they could move the taller parts of the building to Plaza Drive. For these reasons, I request that you reject the application for the PUD and the height waiver. Mark Cathcart, 1763 Sweet Clover Lane, Louisville, CO The first perspective we were shown was presented as the north. Everyone knows that the mountains are west of Louisville; therefore, the perspective could only be from the east. Secondly, none of the height variances that were granted to the existing Balfour properties were granted to adjacent existing residential properties. The new ones in the area being built now are over height buildings. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I live immediately south of the subject application. This is my first time in front of you. I am not an expert or professional in planning law as it applies in Colorado, so excuse me if I have misunderstood the intent of any legal aspect of this application. As far as I am aware, the point as you well know about planning and zoning regulations is that the community through its officers and elected officials decide is certain growth and development restrictions are necessary for public benefit. I was surprised to find this application coming as a planned unit development or PUD. It is essentially a single building with a single use on two relatively small plats which do not themselves make a sub- district. This seems to be simply an end around the community agreed regulations, specifically the height restrictions entirely for commercial benefit. I have listened to the application and the Board and I am not convinced that this application has met the required burden of proof for approval and waivers for the planning restrictions. As we heard from the applicant's architect, there are no unique circumstances for the property or general conditions of the neighborhood that would require approval. The City is not in dire need of this type of property or accommodation for the site. The applicant didn't speak to demand. Granting a height waiver will adversely affect the property and the locality by allowing the building to be much more visible from the open space and the adjacent lake trails. The land can yield a reasonable return without approval and waivers. The owner knew the zoning and planning restrictions when acquiring the property. No hardship has been taken by an owner or prior owner that would warrant a waiver or approval of this PUD. In short, there seems to be no special circumstances that would warrant approval. There also seem to be numerous other ways the property can be developed without waivers. I'd like to submit for the record five pictures which you should have in your packet that were taken today. If the height waiver is granted, the proposed building will be visible from the east, north, and south sides of the public open space and trails, and will interrupt the views of the Flatirons. It will overlook the single family residential homes. I believe this is inconsistent with the primary intention of the City of Louisville's own design standards and guidelines to maintain and enhance property values within Louisville. I'd like to ask that you reject this application and the associated height waiver. Brian Topping, 1550 White Violet Way, Louisville, CO I appreciate all the work you have done on this. From what we've seen and from where it started and where it's at now, I was actually a little bit surprised and impressed with some of the progress on this. That said, I came with a written document. To your point, Mr. Tengler, I don't want to repeat what my neighbors have already said. I do want to know some of the meta - issues I have noticed in watching this session today. We haven't been consulted or contacted at all through this process, and I feel basic contempt for the neighborhood, as well as some of these people have only lived there a year. This is really upsetting after spending a lot of money to move into this rather nice location; to have a gentleman who lives up in Niwot say, "well, you guys don't really matter, we are going to build this anyway, and we don't accept your camel by committee." I felt it was a little contemptuous. Could we build this in Niwot? I think that is a really good observation that may be fine for everybody. Sorry for my snarkiness on this but it was a difficult investment to get in here, and I am behind the commercial development of Louisville. It