Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 24, 2021 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />would be compatible with the area. He described surveys that he had taken of nearby <br />residents, in which the majority said that they did not want rental units and that they <br />wanted empty -nester housing to maintain residents of Louisville.. He personally wanted <br />to see more commercial in line with the original Foundry to lower property taxes and <br />attract a destination restaurant. <br />Usha Barry, 1173 Summit View, stated that she lived across from the development and <br />appreciated the developer's responsiveness to the community. She thought this was an <br />improvement over the last iteration but she was concerned that traffic on Summit View <br />with no light was already nerve-wracking. <br />Jeff Gass, 784 Meadowlark Lane, stated that economics and price points would <br />determine how many families would live in the development and noted that the patio <br />homes in Steel Ranch only had two families with school -aged children. He did not think <br />it would be an issue to make it age -restricted. He stated that there were many empty <br />commercial development in the area and the proposal amount was excessive and that <br />more residential would bring sales tax to the City. He added that Baseline had no effect <br />on this development as the egress would be 42 for anyone heading north. <br />Bair summarized that they had made changes based on community feedback and the <br />direction of the development was to work for the community and the developers, and to <br />bring new types of and additional housing to Louisville. <br />Ritchie added that the traffic numbers in the report were assumptions -based and she <br />clarified that the arrows in Figure 2 indicated intersections, not the flow of traffic. She <br />added that staff had worked with a traffic engineer to create those predictions. <br />Brauneis asked about the lack of age -restricted housing. <br />Ritchie replied that there were different staff at the time for previous approvals and a <br />number of years ago there was more concern around school overcrowding. The census <br />and demographic trends were aging up so there was less school enrollment than there <br />had been. There had also been a desire to provide age -targeted housing for that <br />increasing demographic. Staff wanted to hear from the Planning Commission if age <br />restrictions needed to be carried forward. Ritchie stated that given the inclusionary <br />housing ordinance and the increase in housing demand, this would be an option to <br />provide inclusionary housing to contribute to expanded housing options. <br />Williams stated that the Comp Plan vision was for the commercial portion and though <br />they were coming out of a pandemic with lots of vacancies she hated to build something <br />that was mostly residential and forego commercial when it might be needed in the future <br />for the town. <br />Diehl stated that the original vision had much higher commercial area and described the <br />trends that brought commercial down recently. He was uncomfortable going down that <br />far. He noted that the South Boulder Road Small Area Plan and the Comp Plan had <br />involved direct input from citizens and he did not feel comfortable changing so much <br />from those documents, including the age restriction and the commercial percentages. <br />