Planning Commission Minutes 2006 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes AUGUST 10, 2006 Page 7 of 10 McCartney stated that is a valid point and suggested that a condition regarding that could be added to the resolution of approval. Lipton discussed the compliance to the Comprehensive Plan, density, the possibility of an additional access point. Dalton inquired about condition #9 and what is the objective of the condition. McCartney stated that it came as a request from the Public Works department. Sheets had questions for the applicant regarding landscaping and density. Rozier explained the proposed fencing and the difference of yard and bulk requirements between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Dalton asked for an accident count at South Boulder Road and McCaslin Blvd. and a comparison to similar intersections. Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: Hartman stated that she agreed with the majority of the public comments and that the discussion should start with the current entitlements. Lipton stated that he understands the desire of the community to have more open space and he appreciates the current owners willingness to dedicate Lots 1 and 2 on the west side of McCaslin to the City as Open Space. Deborski stated that the number of lots needs to be closer to the number of lots proposed during the Comprehensive Plan which was 14. He agrees with the traffic issues that have been discussed by the public. He also stated that the proposal is not what he wants for the “gateway” to Louisville. Pritchard sited the following: traffic access and safety; concerns with the fiscal analysis; development should be 14 not 25 lots; and the development is not the “gateway” he expected for Louisville. Lipton discussed how this development can serve as the “gateway” to Louisville and as proposed it is the nicest “gateway”. He requested that the Commissioner specifically discuss what they want to see as the “gateway”. He continued with the following topics: traffic is not about volume but safety; additional landscaping and not using prairie grass. Loo reviewed her concerns with traffic and access to McCaslin. She also suggested that if seven homes are built they would most likely have a value of $2M each, where this proposal is for a home value of $400 - $500 thousand. Sheets stated that she agreed with comments made by Loo and Lipton. She discussed her concerns with traffic safety and the need for the City staff to complete a fiscal study. She also appreciates the proposed land dedication to open space. Dalton questioned if a lower speed on McCaslin would address some of the traffic safety concerns. He stated that any development, no matter what size, would affect the view corridor. He supports the development of the site but seven is not a sensible plan. He also requested that the City complete a fiscal analysis.