Planning Commission Minutes 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 2016 Page 22 of 33 little different. There hasn't been an outreach and there is no requirement for outreach, but it can shift the discussion and time before coming to the PC and CC. We've spent two hours already on this, going over public comment. It is extremely difficult right now. We have two balancing interests and both are fine, but taking the residents at their word, I think they want to make this work. I don't think they are saying "no" development whatsoever, which is not always the view I see from some residents about development. I think I am going to vote against this development. I think it is in the interest of the community and the interest of the developer and the residents to at least discuss this a little bit. I don't think the design is too far off what residents may be okay with; I think that people don't like surprises. People haven't had time to understand everything about it. I think that needs to be "flushed up" before PC approves. Rice says every time we have one of these difficult circumstances where we have significant interest on both sides of the issue, it is a truism that we won't please all of the people all of the time. In those cases, I always come back to the word of balance. In this case, I think the balance tips in favor of approval of this project and there are three reasons in particular that I would assign to that conclusion that I have reached. 1. The first and the most significant one to me is if we were going to keep this at a 35' height limit in this area, the time to do that was many years ago. I think the year assigned is 1997, so we are talking 20 years ago. If Louisville as a community wanted this to be a 35' height area, that was the time to do it. We have allowed a tremendous amount of development in this very same area, right adjacent to it, at heights in excess of what is being requested through this proposal. 2. The second thing I think is important is this is not open space. This is zoned property that they have a right to develop. Albeit, they have asked for waivers here, but the idea that this can be kept as open space for the public's enjoyment, is not our role at all. This is private property zoned for development. These folks have brought a very well - conceived development plan before us. 3. The third thing I think is important is that having senior living is a really compelling need for this community. This is not only senior living; this is very well -considered senior living. I think from a community perspective is very significant. The last thing I will say is that I agree with Mr. Menaker that there has to be some consideration given to a condition that would allow for an optimal result in terms of how we are going to do the landscaping. There has been a lot of discussion about "what is a mature tree" and whether we can preserve what is there. Somehow, we have to write a condition that allows some collaboration with all the interests, including the City Forester and City Landscape Architect to make sure we get this done right. I'd like to see a condition that requires there be some additional work done on that landscaping. O'Connell says first I will say is that Balfour is a tremendous asset to the Louisville community. It seems like it is a great neighbor and is a great place to live. I look at these plans and see a really well -designed, beautiful building that will be functional as well. However, I look at the criteria and this is a tremendous balancing act. I am finding myself falling on disapproval of the height waiver. The criteria I am looking at in particular is criterion #1, the appropriate relationship to the surrounding area and criterion #6, the privacy in terms of the needs of the individuals, families, and neighborhoods. Some reference was made to the fact that in this area, most of the Balfour buildings are already over 50' high. That is true, but at the same time, they was all put in before there were residences in place. Now we are dealing with having to apply these criteria in a different environment which involves other new residential development. This strip of land where this project is proposed is, from what I see, in a buffer zone. If there is a time to transition away from the 50' tall buildings towards the residential, this is the place to do it. The CDDSG is there for a reason and those guidelines are there for a reason. It was determined to be in the best interest of the community to have those limits. I think we are up against that, the balance of making Balfour a stronger place and having a stronger community, but also looking at the CDDSG and other guidelines and asking, is this what is best for the city overall. I am leaning towards not approving the waiver, but I am open to hearing what the rest of the