Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is THE source for insight, opinions and all kinds of information on the growth and political issues impacting Eastern Boulder County, Colorado. Come here to see the latest from those in the know in Louisville, Lafayette, Superior, Erie and Longmont.
NOTE: This Blog will no longer be updated as of December 4, 2007.
Lijit Search of this Blog
Local News Sources:
Visitors since 1/10/07:
Links to Other Items of Interest
Subscribe To EastBoCo in Your Reader
Favorite Blogs and Websites
Labels
- Lafayette (116)
- Boulder County (89)
- Louisville (65)
- Longmont (57)
- Erie (47)
- Superior (32)
- updates (30)
- WalMart (13)
- 2C (7)
- BVSD (6)
- Colorado (5)
- national issues (5)
- 2B (3)
- Broomfield (3)
- Weld County (3)
- election (3)
- 2A (2)
- 3A (2)
- St Vrain Valley School District (2)
- Beauprez (1)
- Centaurus High School (1)
- Coroner (1)
- Daveco (1)
- FasTracks (1)
- Frederick (1)
- Larkridge (1)
- Niwot (1)
- November 2007 election (1)
- RTD (1)
- health care (1)
- internet (1)
- random news (1)
43 comments:
The abutting neighborhood has brought attention to this questionable color scene. After a response from the Planning Director, I have pushed back citing the information he has provided does not jive with what is been done. I have provided him with pictures which show the developer is not in compliance with the color schemes approved by the Planning Commission.
I have also pointed out that this new development is at a "gateway" to the city and because the property to the west is open space, it can be seen for miles.
Invoking my sense of humor, if this can't be remedied, observers will maybe think Louisville did it and not Lafayette. Since I opposed the development to begin with and Louisville approved the shared street to the west, they will be reminded of their decision every day.
As the pundit onced said, be careful what you wish for.....
On a more serious note, the developer has disrupted the neighborhood and there is a major drainage issue that has not been addressed.
I cannot believe my eyes when I drive past the development at Eagle Place. Honestly, the council members who voted for this should really be emabarrased - it is truly an eye sore and so unfortunate that you see this as the first thing when entering our town. If these are not the approved colors as Kerry Bensman suggested, I hope that someone on council holds this developer accountable to change them. Furthermore, since this is 100% affordable rentals, my hope was that at least it might be a nice looking development that would encourage renters to keep their homes and property in nice condition. When you give someone something as ugly as this is to live in - do you really think they are going to care for it? I give this place 1 year before it looks like the condos and townhomes on Sir Galahad on South Boulder Road which look like the projects of our town.
My question is - who will be accountable when this happens to the "gateway" of our town?
What a disappointment and very poor decision.
Good to know there are those who would serve as "Color and Good Taste Police". Perhaps this development stands out because it's adjacent to row upon row of boring, beige sameness.
But, as long as we're going down this path, I'd like to suggest something be done about the Honda Element. Now, that's one ugly vehicle.
Hmmm, colorful WWII barracks?
I agree with the previous post, in the sense that no matter what color or detail is added to the Eagle Place units, the accusation was bound to be made that the units are ugly. No doubt if the color had been far more subdued, someone would have made the same inappropriate reference to WWII barracks.
Is the site a complete success? I remember open area being a lot more integral to the site than what I can see driving by the construction site. But, for the record, I was at my second son's birth the night the Lafayette Planning Commission made its recommendation to the council on this site and architectural and preliminary plan, so I might be mistaken.
Personally, in terms of testing expectations, I'm watching the SuperWalMart project, waiting to see if that retaining/screen wall actually reduces the visual impact of the parking lot from points east.
I would like the colors that are being used if they were in context (Reykjavik Iceland) but they are an extreme combination here.
Dok, I like the Honda Element too!!
The buildings look very crowded together. That to me stands out as the biggest problem.
I would like the colors that are being used if they were in context (Reykjavik Iceland) but they are an extreme combination here.
Dok, I like the Honda Element too!!
The buildings look very crowded together. That to me stands out as the biggest problem.
The basic issue is whether the developer is following what was agreed to with the city
From what I have received to date from the Planning Director and the abuting HOA leads me to believe the developer is not in compliance.
The architectural renderings don't match right now. As a former director of the IBM Printing Systems Company, I dealt with color all the time. It is well understood that a specific color on a drawing does not replicate itself well on inkjet printers, computer displays, and pigmentations in paint. The drawings provided to me so far do not match up with the actual colors used or even the color mix being used.
And yes, the city is responsible for being the "color police" on this project just like many others.
That is the central issue.
Let me just point out the irony of this blog taking up pure aesthetic regulation (albeit within city limits) with the "property rights" bent applied to, for example, County sustainability regulations...
But, to the point, how far off are we talking in terms of color? I think the objection is to intent of what was approved, isn't it? Nitpicking color charts and specification systems for colors is tedious at best.
Ha, you thought you had me, Alex - but to paraphrase Voltaire, I will defend the right of anyone to paint their hose whatever color they want. I do NOT think it is the government's role to choose and dictate such things.
What makes me laugh incredulously is that somewhere, somebody sat down, envisioned this and thought "that's gonna look good!". And that's why even though I cringe, I don't want the govt. involved. Dictate the expected behavior, and incent that, but leave subjective property aesthetics decisions to the property owner.
Well guys, you are both wrong.
The city has every right to reach an agreement with the developers as to the look and feel of a development, including color scheme. The goal is to allow the developer as much leeway as possible but to protect the abuting neighborhoods from living next to an eye sore. The color scheme was not dictated to this developer. This is a part of every PUD. The city has a vested interest in protecting existing neighborhoods to prevent plunging property values and eventually a blighted area. Imagine if all of EP was to be painted that shade of red, which is not an approved color based on what I was told as of today.
If you two lived next to this development, you would be screaming bloody murder about what it would be doing to your property values and your quality of life. But you don't. So you view it as not your problem. The dark side of NIMBY.
This is typical. In my HOA of 1350 units, it is well understood that members are extremely lenient about what goes on in other neighborhoods until it happens next to them. OK if the guy in the next neighborhood raises pigs or junks a car in his front yard. But don't let my neighbor do it. That is one reason homeowners prefer a covenant controlled development. And in developments of units to be sold, the developer knows the color scheme affects his/her ability to sell the units. Commercial developers want their properties to be appealing to attract leasees. So they are careful. But not in this rental complex.
Regardless, an agreement was reached with the city. If the developer is violating the agreement, then the situation has to be remedied. If this is viewed as nitpicking, then replace the Planning Commission and City Council with a big rubber stamp for PUDs. Why bother? If building codes and agreements aren't enforced, why have them?
Lastly, the abuting neighborhoods has been there for years, taxpayers paying their property taxes, many of them elderly. So you are willing to throw them under the bus for a development for newcomers and strangers.
Nice to know you are looking after your fellow man.
If I am wrong about the approved colors, so be it. I profess no personal knowledge. I believe Dan's comment was as much about design intent as the enforcement issue you brought up. Anyway, I don't dispute the City's right to enforce regulation, and you ought to know that. So if the colors are wrong, and I mean substantially wrong, I'm all for correcting the situation.
As for the hysterics and accusations that the City is not "looking after your fellow man," that is just about the most self-righteous thing I've ever heard. Show me the data on property values, and I'll be happy to admit you're right about that. It's not indifference that makes it necessary and possible to take action on a case like Eagle Place, it's two different views, many different views, of how we can serve our public best. When decent intentions become the target of hyperbolic mudslinging, you have to wonder about the intentions and compassion, or lack thereof, of the accuser.
You may be right about enforcement of the color scheme, Kerry. The rest of your rhetoric is supported by fear, not evidence. Show us otherwise.
Kerry- I think Dan does own a place next to this development. At least that was mentioned when this development first started.
I drove by this morning to see what the fuss is about, and it didn't strike me as bad as the conversation here lead me to believe. It still looks fairly unfinished, too.
Doesn't Louisville have plans to put something West of this site? Wouldn't that hide the "eye sore"?
The city should mandate Beige as the color of choice. It would be fair, but no one would be happy. Maybe a free class for all home owners to let them know that purple and orange shouldn't be used together. I know it would help some in my neigborhood.
Cyclo,
The land west of EP is open space. You can see these colors from the Blockbuster Video on 95th Street.
Please keep in mind that the buildings closest to So. Boulder have yet to be painted. When I took my pictures I went up as close to the buildings without trespassing. Driving by does not give you the full effect.
Around my neighborhood and adjoining subdivisions, there are some interesting and puzzling mixes of colors, especially garage doors and trim. But these are single family homes and not massive apartment buildings. They are not located on a gateway to the city. And they follow the PUD and the covenants (though I must admit the interpretions are somewhat weird sometimes). Some with weird combinations have had trouble selling - wonder why?
Acceptable color schemes tend to change with the times. The developer insisted on earth tones when I moved in, yet a few years later said earth tones were disgusting for the one being built at the time.
But the crux of my argument is did the developer follow the legal agreement or not? The evidence I have today says NO.
I think you may want to check into this. There is a parcel between these apartments and the Harney Lastoka Open Space that is in the City of Louisville. Not sure if this got developed with Eagle place, but I'm pretty sure it didn't. Check the assessor's site. http://map.co.boulder.co.us/basemap/default.jsp
I think Cy is right. There is a brick house between the open space and the Eagles Place.
About purple and orange banging up next to each other, it does look like a group of citrus colors are being liberally applied at Eagles Place.
I'd like to see a black and white building. How would that look?
But seriously, doesn't the city approve a palette of colors when they are going over architecture and landscaping and such?
The former Louisville City Manager's house and one other house occupy the space between Eagle Place and the Harney Lastoka Open Space. The Eagle Place units on the southern end of the property may or may not continue to be visible to the open space, depending on what eventually happens to those private parcels in Louisville.
Lafayette isn't that dull of a town, that we should be having these cranky discussions about color choice. Look north and west for examples of popular, funky color schemes. The Holiday neigborhood in NoBo is a good example. In fact it might have been nice to have something similar here, like store fronts with lofts, but I think this discussion already took place here.
I get your point, Kerry, about this being a gateway to the city. We don't want to give the wrong first impression to those coming to Lafayette from Louisville. Any landscaping/tress palnned on the West edge of this developpmnet?
I am frequently puzzled by Councilor Bensman's continuing 'us vs. them' mentality in regards to the city. Being on the city council, 'us' and 'them' are the same group. If he feels "us/them" is not doing their job, then I suggest he speak up at council and make motions to fix what he, as a member of council and therefore one of the leaders of the city, is responsible for. Banging away at staff is like punching yourself in the face. It might be gratifying but it does not improve the picture (well, in most cases).
The basic issue here is that the PC left it up to Staff's discretion to negotiate with the developer on the color scheme. Staff feels the developer has complied with what they negotiated. Delegating things to staff on most occasions works just fine since they have the expertise. I would recommend to the PC going forward, however, that on issues of color they no longer delegate that responsibility to staff, or at least require a PC signoff.
Ah, if the Staff/Council connection were truly so symbiotic... I think Council should be there to keep an eye on staff, (another unrecognized and thankless task of our elected officials - so here is my public recognition and thank you!) as they are career bureaucrats with the institutional knowledge and frequently the sense of empowerment that they will outlast any elected offical and can set de facto policy based on their personal desires.
We the people should watch Council, Council in part should be watching the staff.
Perhaps I can clear up Councillor Phillips' puzzlement. And Dan's comment is more on the money.
I have had staffs reporting to me and have served on a staff as well. Staffs have agendas and biases. They also are prone to filtering information and at times, concealing it. (Just follow the national news these days regarding the CIA and Iraq). So I have always viewed the challenge of dealing with staffs as to find out what I wasn't being told and how accurate the information is that I am being told. Since I have experience, expertise, and education in some areas, I can assess that a lot better in those areas. If I believe I am getting the run around, the staff who supposedly work for the city council will hear about. And when they do a good job, they hear about it too.
I view my responsibility as a council member to be first to the citizens and voters of Lafayette. The city charter puts strict limitations on council access to staff, in fact for all intents and purposes, almost no official access. Making motions may seem somewhat productive but in no way does it guarantee that what we get back is complete and accurate. And just like with any bureacracy, knowing the questions to ask is key.
As a council member, it is tempting to bond with the staff. It is also tempting over time to lose sight as to who we really represent and work for. Finding out what is going on in city government is like peeling the onion and putting large puzzles together. Over the years, I have been amazed at what comes to light and how long it takes to get at the information. And yes, as in any bureacracy, there are hopes that the management and/or council changes and institutional memory disappears.
When I ran for election more than 3 years ago, I had to interview with the Daily Camera guys. They had been told that if I got elected, city department heads were going to resign en mass. Well I did and they didn't.
Now imagine if it is hard for a council member to get at things, what it must be like for the every day resident. I know when I have hit a nerve in city hall when I get no response. That's my test. When it comes to Eagles Place, I have made the request to define what compliance is for the color scheme and does the city have any options with the developer.
Department heads make around $100,000 a year plus benefits and pension. I get paid $400 a month. All I want is the complete and accurate story. The citizens and voters of Lafayette who pay the city government and me deserve that.
We're getting a little off-point here, but I'd like to hear more elaboration on this statement, if you would, Kerry: "The city charter puts strict limitations on council access to staff, in fact for all intents and purposes, almost no official access."
Dan, and you thought you were just going to get comments on the colors?
Although this string appears to have gotten way off topic, it depends on how you define the topic.
If the topic is "are the colors appealing", its' off topic. If the topic is "has the developer followed the color scheme as defined in the PUD", we may be closer to topic.
If, however, the topic is "the current system allows city staff to approve color schemes, but now they've approved a color scheme I don't like, so we need to micromanage them more" - well, OK then, we're on topic.
Two truths - first, the vast majority of Lafayette residents could not care less about the color of these units, they're much more concerned with their daily lives - do they still have a job, is their marriage working, are their kids growing up to be good adults, etc. Plus, the nice thing about buildings, they can be repainted and these will be, over time. Maybe purple and orange will be in vogue then. So, let's put some perspective on this.
Second truth - the Honda Element is not alone as an ugly vehicle.
Alex,
The city charter requires that either all communication to department heads go through the city administrator or if a council member contacts a department head, the city administrator be copied on the communication or the department head informs the city administrator of the content of the communication.
Bottomline, I cannot tell a city employee what to do. They do not have to respond to me unless directed by the city admin (they usually do unless I hit a nerve). I have no input on their performance/salary reviews. I cannot directly discipline or terminate a city employee. I have no access to their personnel records.
What is also humorous about the whole thing is that city employees are required to be polite to council members and refer to us by our title at all times for fear of reprimand.
This was all done to separate and protect government employees from the ups and downs of elected officials and politics. The city administrator and city attorney serve at the pleasure of the council. Maybe also the city clerk.
With pardons to Doktorbombay and others who would rather return to the topic at hand, I must say it is interesting to hear comment from a councilor that laments their ability to do something as a city servant when the limitations being discussed were summarily endorsed by the entire council as a "housekeeping" Charter amendment in 2005. Unless I am mistaken, we are talking about Charter Section 4.16, which didn't exist until after the 2005 election.
The implementation of that Section, if it were truly interpreted as housekeeping, would not be so extreme as described by Councilor Bensman. However, I would not disagree that this is actually how the provision has been implemented, as I never believed this was necessitated or intended as housekeeping.
By the way, the same question @E in 2005 attempted to clarify that the City Clerk does not serve at the pleasure of the council, rather the City Administrator.
No, Alex. It's Article II, Section 5-21. Nothing to do with 2005 housekeeping. It's been there quite a while, long before my time. The personnel stuff is just the way it is, separting employees and politicians.. When a new councillor is oriented by the city admin, that's what we hear about. Not what are the important issues the city faces but the communication protocol. When I had my orientation with the city admin, finance director, and economic development director, that was the topic. (I don't make this stuff up).
As for doc bombay, the city is made up of neighborhoods. What happens to one doesn't affect the others until it happens to them. So the council should pay attention when something appears to go awry, especially at a gateway to the city. If no one raises a fuss, then another neighborhood will pop up on the hit list sooner or later.
Just hope it isn't yours.
I stand corrected, except to say that Lafayette Municipal Code Section 5-21 is not in the Charter, so the initial reference lead me astray. Also, the "housekeeping" Charter question in 2005 did nothing but solidify the wall and limitation of conduits between the City administration and the political body of the City, so one can point to the advantages and disadvantages of that, but it really grates on me that we actually have some discussion of it now when there was deafening silence on making that policy choice iron-clad back in 2005.
If you try to apply all this analysis to the enforcement of colors at Eagle Place, I think it is correct to conclude that the case now falls on the administration. Should the Planning Commission and City Council have been more specific when they narrowed the color choices during their deliberations on, respectively, the recommendation and approval of the site and architectural plan for Eagle Place? That is a distinct possibility.
That conclusion is consistent with my view that throughness and advocacy as citizen representatives is best achieved during the formal action on a case, not as post-facto hand-wringing.
Just to reassure the public, the newest members of council received an extensive orientation to the city with presentations by and Q&A with each of the departments of the city.
I'm not sure why Councilor Bensman remembers the sole focus of his orientation being on the appropriate way to communicate with staff. It was certainly mentioned in our orientation, but the vast majority of our time was spent learning about the operations and issues critical to the city.
Per Councilor Cameron's remarks, I can only relate to my experience in the session I had with the city administrator, finance director, and economic development director. Dave Schneller who had just been elected did not show. So it was three city folks and me.
There were also separate discussions and tours with the department heads. Also a session on the Liquor Board, etc.
I did hear that the new council members had multiple sessions regarding the city's financials as well. I was told since I had been intensely ivolved for several years and had read the budget books as a civilian that they thought it wasn't needed for me.
It was a great intro to the city government. But just an intro.
Hand wringing, Alex. Please.
A neighborhood of a couple hundred people are saying something went seriously wrong. And its the duty of a councilor to follow up and check it out. We have an over sight reponsibility. Are they to be ignored?
I have dealt with Indian Peaks, South Pointe, Waneka Point, Waneka Landing, Beacon Hill, Old Town (both east and west). etc. They call me. I don't call them. Goes with the territory. Regardless of how the issue gets resolved, they are happy someone listens to them. I view their calls as a complement.
City government is like an other organization. If errors occur, the goal is to address them and make the government better.
The government serves the people, not the other way around.
Where do you get these lines anyway? I don't like shoveling stuff under the rug.
My point is that this problem could have been avoided, as with so many problems you've identified before, right when the issue was before you the first time. It's that simple.
If you disagree with my "lines," you'll have to be more specific. I know I didn't say anything about shovels or rugs.
So let's give Councilor Bensman the award for 20/20 hindsight and get back to the issue. After all, did anyone ever argue that errors should not be corrected?
The Lafayette News article contained no comment from the City staff, but Councilor Phillips indictated here that the administration has determined that the developer complied with what was negotiated. For posterity, I am specifically interested in the article's allegation that red paint has been introduced to the plan without any mention in the approval.
Here's what I get from the Planning Commmission minutes of November 30, 2005:
Site/Architectural Plan Condition 2. The applicant shall work with staff to develop more appropriate color schemes for all of the buildings. Such amended color schemes shall provide colors that are more harmonious to the surrounding land uses than as submitted in the color renderings. The color scheme plan shall indicate the exact color scheme for each individual building.
The City Council record of site and architectural review on April 18, 2006 does not show any specific action or discussion of the color scheme condition.
So... Is there an error or isn't there?
This week, after the Planning Director returned from vacation, he sent out another set of drawings, the approved ones. Red was in this set but not the original.
As for compliance or not, that's going to take some time to figure out.
If what I am reading is correct, the planning commission made changing the Eagle Place colors to a palette "more harmonious to the surrounding land uses than as submitted in the color renderings" part of their approval and the city council approved the apartments with this condition intact. After that, the planning staff approved the first set of colors submitted plus an additional fire engine red? Am I missing something here?
Well, Alex says the departments are true blue, well organized and quite concise.
All I know is I have around 10 .pdf files, some saying original, some saying approved, 3 memoes from planning and the city attorney's office. I also have the digital pictures I took.
You ask two good questions. The actual colors on the building do not match up with the artist's renditions. Red only shows up in the second only set of approved drawings,not the only first set of approved drawings. In fact until every thing is done, it won't be easy to figure it all out.
How did the red creep in there? No clue. Is it on the building where it is supposed to be? Hard to tell right now.
See how clear cut and crisp everything is? Like peeling an onion. Let's move on. It will weeks to get it all sorted out.
Confused?
I'm certainly confused why you would put words in my mouth. If you'd care to take it up in the topic now devoted to City management, I'd be glad to discuss.
I agree with the inquiry here, but if it will take "weeks" to figure out, Eagle Place will be pretty much vested in their current colors, with the technicalities of the approval process not even being that important any more. If the colors are out of compliance, the City needs to issue a stop order now and correct the situation immediately.
From what I've now seen, with some additional material sent by the City, it seems to me that the matter of colors was dealt with rather loosely somewhere along the line. It seems to me that "somewhere" was after the Planning Commission attached its Condition 2, but it could be that the amount of subjectivity and latitude with that condition was the seed of the problem.
In any event, from what I've seen, this could very well end up being one of those cases where fingers may wag and wag and wag, but the outcome has already been predetermined. Basically, from what I see coming out of City Hall, the issue is not compliance, but an approval that is legal even though it doesn't meet the expectations of various interested parties, including, very likely, decision-makers on both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
I have to commend and encourage any public official who wants to make sure things are done right. That's a legitimate cause. But I also give no quarter to making political hay out of an unfortunate situation, and leading people to believe that their representatives can deliver for them something they ought to know they can't. It's easy to be a hero in this way, but such heroics are empty gestures, and it just burns me up that someone on the council can build a constituency out of being the champion of false hope.
Perhaps it's too early to be honest with ourselves, but I do wish some of this energy could be directed at issues prospectively. I think you do fine work, Kerry, when you focus on the issues where you are strongest.
Cyclo - you're not a Chicago Bears fan? I'm taking a guess regarding your color comment, not knowing where you live in town. I think team colors can be obnoxious and garish and proudly displayed as an extension of free speech. I love seeing it just as a proud personal expression. Viva La Primera Enmienda!
Political hay on this web site? That's interesting. Gee, Dan, how many thousands of Lafayette voters check this site every day?
Actually it is no secret I supported the CVW residents from the very beginning regarding EP. I got berated at a City Council meeting for being bold enough to discuss the matter with Louisville council members about it (imagine one council member talking to another in an abutting city) and to challenge both city Planning Commissions on trying to slip agreement of a condition for road access to a Lafayette street for a Louisville development that had nothing to do with EP. (Our Planning Department did not challenge Louisville's action though it knew about it until I raised the issue.)
So when this development continues to have problems that affect that neighborhood, color scheme is the most visible but there are other construction problems, they will call me.
Why helping our neighborhoods is deemed so offensive is a surprise to me? I live in one after all. And am president of the HOA with 1350 units, 8-10% of Lafayette's population. We've had to deal with city and developer issues from day 1. How do you think the Thomas Open Space happened?
Who do you think people will hold accountable for the current look of EP?
P.S. I was born and raised in Wisconsin. My mother was from Green Bay. She used to wait on Curly Lambeau in my grandfather's store. The most offensive thing I have ever seen on this blog is any mention of the Chicago Bears.
More power to you, Kerry, for listening to people.
But what is this jumble of ideas above supposed to mean? One of the fundamental skills in law and politics is sorting out the relevant from the irrelevant. I always find it striking how high the irrelevant quotient is when someone cares only for politics and nothing for the law.
Irrelevant information makes for great "politics," as it were, and that's where my comment was coming from. I'm reacting to the often incoherent banter that gets passed off as digging in and finding out about an issue.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is commendable to have someone - and, across the board, that may be you more than anyone else, maybe, Kerry - on the City Council who views it as their job to be a liaison when the administration is not responsive. But an effective liaison is not simply an empath for neighborhood concerns, but one who conveys the bad news back to the neighborhood when that is the way things are.
And the news on Site and Architecture Condition 2 is not good for those who think the colors out there right now are out of context.
If you want affirmation from me for being a true liaison, not just one who gravitates toward opportunities to sling mud at the establishment (and just about everyone else around you who might otherwise be sympathetic to what you are trying to achieve, like me), I would hope the reality of the paint situation soon gets some acknowledgment.
Viva Brett Farve!
I'd like to see Kerry wear a cheese head to the next council meeting! Maybe you could paint it orange and purple to illustrate the tackiness of the color scheme at EP.
Cheese heads came in way after I moved away from WI. When the Pack beat New England in the Super Bowl, the college pranksters built a cheese head on top of the Great Dome at my alma mater. Not as impressive as the cow that was stolen at put up there or the VW.
It will be interesting to see what public input we get as the buildings closer to the main drag get painted. A resident of Louisville asked me today how this had happened.
I do have a Paker hat I could wear.
Oh, now it is mud slinging. Before it was making politcal hay. And before that it was nitpicking. So Alex, lots of empathetic support there.
The HOA abutting EP has received the Planning Director's offical response to their concerns about the color schemes. I have been copied continously on the exchanges between them and the city. I have also have a ruling by the city attorney on this.
The CVW HOA president contends that the EP developer showed them a different color scheme to get the HOA to sign an agreement but the scheme now being used does not match it. So now the HOA has the burden of proof to demonstrate their claim.
Today I got a call from a Louisville resident on another matter asking about it. That resident is quite active in Louisville politics. I told the caller I don't have a clue as to what can be done unless somehow the developer voluntarily makes some changes. Until the entire development is painted, it will remain up in the air.
I have sat through discussion after discussion about the importance of preserving the aesthetic appearance of the gateways to the city, especially in workshops with the Planning Director and the Planning Commission. The Planning Director maintains the developer is in compliance and the city attorney says it depends on the latitude granted to the developer.
Meanwhile, the painting goes on and the way it looks is the way it looks.
I'm going to have to drive by those everyday and the colors are too bright and why shouldn't a residence be held in the same codes as businesses.
To the guy who thought we are being "color and taste police", I'd rather see being then mess up our open space with bright colors. But then again, you'd rather have a fit over the style of a hybrid then better then environment.
In any case, I was against this development from the beginning. It's just too small of a space for that many residents on an already difficult traffric area on S. Boulder Road.
And yes, it'll look just as bad as Garfield and S. Boulder Road in no time. I'll be moving from the city within the year.
Post a Comment