Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 20 of 33 is a very vibrant and promising community that will continue to be so regardless of the outcome of this, but for the purposes of this request, I really request that you reject this waiver and the PUD attached to it until we can get more time to work with Balfour, get these things ironed out, and get a good understanding between the community and Balfour itself. Michael Menaker, 1827 W Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO I didn't really think I was going to need a second medical opinion, but since Dr. Seuss was introduced, the thing that flashed through my brain was Spock. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In essence, that is what you are juggling tonight. I am 66 years old. We just had our last goodbye to my mother-in-law two weeks ago. I am very aware that my time is coming and I will say this, for the 20 years that Balfour has been there, every time we drive by, we say a little prayer and hope that we can afford it when we need it. I think that when I look at the needs of an aging community, my neighbors, and my friends who have aging parents that may need to relocate, the need for a continuum of care proposed by this unit is demonstrative. I was concerned about the height. I am less concerned now that I see how diverse height variances are and how few come to the highest request. Had this been a 54' monolithic building, I would have different views on this. I am also intrigued and remember that when the North End builds out, it will be building its final units adjacent to 54' high buildings that are part of the original Balfour development. On balance, when I look at the needs of the community as a whole, while I understand the concerns of the neighbors to the east, I am in support of this project. I am always struck, when I come to these meetings, by residential communities newer than mine (built in the early 1980s) make many of the same arguments from newer residents against something new next to them that were made before their houses were built. We hear the same things over and over. On balance, I support this project and urge you to do the same. I would make one final note. I think "mature trees" is a bad definition. It is almost undefinable. What I do think is, if that condition is going to be part of your approval, it be something like "vegetation and trees as large as feasible" with the sign off from the City Landscaper and City Forester, and with their expertise and guidance. How big is really feasible and valuable in planning the largest landscaping we can do there? Thank you very much for your time. Sherry Sommer, 910 South Palisade Court, Louisville, CO I want to thank all the people from Sweet Clover Lane who spoke. I agree with everything they said. They were very articulate and they care passionately about this town. I appreciate that they have a relationship with seniors in the area and that they care about senior housing. I don't think it is a zero sum game that we are talking about. I am very sad for our community that it is presented as such. The reason why Louisville is such a great place to live is because it is a community. It has been where people can get along and where it isn't so contentious. The way this is being set up without any communication to the neighbors is reprehensible. I live nowhere near this development, but I would be very sad, and I know many of my neighbors would be sad, if these waivers are granted. It seems to be a slippery slope and we care about the whole community including the seniors and the neighbors, and we should have more compromise. Questions to Staff and Applicant from Commission: Moline says can you explain the public open space aspect of the criterion that has been discussed a number of times this evening? I think there is an misunderstanding among some that open space needs to have a direct public benefit. Can you elaborate on how Staff used that open space? Trice says for those of you who are not aware, open space is defined in the CDDSG a little differently than we typically use open space. It is anything that isn't buildings or roadways. That helps to specify that. There is a criterion in 17.28.120, for reviewing waivers, a reference back to the open space. However any such requirements may be waived or modified through the approval process of the planned unit development if the spirit and intent of the development criteria in 17.28.120 are met and City Council finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for usable open space in common park area in excess of public use dedication use requirements or that the