City Council Minutes 2016 01 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 19, 2016 Page 14 of 25 Council member Maloney stated when he first looked at this proposal he was opposed because of the erosion of the commercial space. After staff's presentation and the public input, he believed it was a quality proposal. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Lipton with respect to being consistent and fair. He also was concerned over the erosion of the City's commercial base. Council member Leh supported the project because it would be a quality development. He agreed it is unfortunate the small area plans have not been adopted to provide guidance, but congratulated everyone on the process. He felt this would be a good project because of the age- restricted units, which would have less impact on traffic, and the schools. He was concerned about what may go into the property, if the proposal is denied. Council member Stolzmann commented she initially felt the development was not compatible with the surrounding homes, but after the neighborhood support, she has changed her mind. She felt there should be some language added to ensure condominiums and not apartments are built. She felt all the units should be age - restricted to satisfy the school and traffic issue and would be a valid reason for the rezoning. She addressed the intersection at Paschal Drive and stressed the importance of not creating an unsafe intersection. She requested comments on age- restriction and condo language. She stated the fiscal impacts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted the $600,000 condo units will be well above the City's median income level and those residents will be spending their dollars in Louisville. She had no opinion on the water tower and confirmed it is still in the project. Mayor Muckle stated he was impressed by the comments, both from the public and from the Council. He stated there are definitely reasons to deny the application based on the loss of commercial and the densification, but felt the reasons to approve far outweigh those concerns, especially when considering the age- restricted units. He agreed it will be the northern gateway to the City. He felt the fiscal outcomes are acceptable. He noted there is neighborhood support for the development. He did not feel a decision on one project influences any other, as each project is judged on its own merits. He supported the water tower and well -lit sidewalks for walkers. Council member Keany supported adding language stipulating condos only. He was comfortable with the 24 age- restricted units and leaving the remaining 8 market rate. He also supported keeping in the water tower. Council member Maloney asked if there were five or six conditions. City Attorney Light stated there are five conditions on the PUD ordinance and one condition for the zoning ordinance regarding use issue. There is also a sixth condition for the PUD Resolution. PUBLIC COMMENT Jeffrey Gass, 784 Meadow Lark Lane, Louisville, CO voiced his support for the project.