Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> also refers ~o a sort of secluded feeling, which again it is hard <br /> to imagine when they are crowded in and packed as they seem <br /> to be on this possible use of the land. I am interested in <br /> structure height. I would be interested in what that would be <br /> ~nd how that would vary witJt the 35 foot height limit that <br /> Boulder County has at this time. The view is sort of a gateway <br /> to the City where people drive in, a main thoroughfare from <br /> the north and to the south end of Louisville and to the golf <br /> course and all the development to the south. We think that it <br /> should be taken into consideration that that piece of land is <br /> unique and should be developed in a very conscientious <br /> manner. Thank you. <br />Joseph L. Franscona, 420 Ponderosa Drive, Boulder, Colorado (Paragon Estates) <br />Franscona: I have lived at 420 Ponderosa Drive since 1961. It seems to <br /> me that the two issues here are; what is going to be on that <br /> land if it is annexed; and secondly the question of annexation <br /> and the very title of the memorandum submitted in this <br /> connection the Markel/Mesa Annexation Letter of Interest. <br /> Of course a reason must be given to receive any approval <br /> necessary for this Council to refer this to the Planning <br /> Commission. As the previous two speakers have so very well <br /> indicated, we are going over the same old thing again. This <br /> Council very wisely with the last petition for annexation several <br /> months ago refused the request for annexation. I feel this <br /> motion has the same problems. As was indicated at that time, <br /> McCaslin Blvd. at 80th Street has always been considered to be <br /> a developing line with respect to the City of Louisville and <br /> subsequent development on the west. I understand of course <br /> that this Council would refer this matter to the Planning <br /> Commission or whatever other procedure is desirable in order <br /> to determine the feasibility of one, annexation and, two, what <br /> is contemplated to be put on that piece of land. The reason I <br /> am appearing here in opposition to this request is that last time <br /> a lot of time was put in by the Planning Commission and by a <br /> hearing and it resulted in nothing. I am here to urge that this <br /> be disapproved and not be referred to the Planning <br /> Commission so that we don't have to go through the same <br /> process with the same arguments with one very important <br /> difference. The people down in Paragon Estates have built <br /> houses that are good, we put our money into those houses <br /> hoping that they would stand up in time and not be <br /> depreciated by what is to occur up near McCaslin Blvd. with <br /> respect to motions like this. I know it is a difficult decision for <br />