Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 01 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 12, 2024 Page 7 of 12 improvement planning process, but Post indicated that it was unlikely the 5-foot reduction would be supported there either. Choi asked about the traffic impacts on the broader area, particularly given the lack of a left -out onto South Boulder Road. He wondered if any consideration had been given to that issue. Fowlkes said they hadn't explored that specific subject yet. He mentioned that Canon Circle did have a left -out, and that future traffic restrictions would be considered as the development progressed. Choi asked for clarification regarding the inclusionary housing issue, noting that the applicant wanted to pursue the Voluntary Alternative Agreement. He pointed out that the staff presentation recommended that "the applicant can choose between the Voluntary Alternative Agreement or the Inclusionary Housing Agreement." Post explained that the exact arrangement was still to be determined but had been brought up in the meeting due to how long the matter had been under review by staff. Bangs asked whether the decision on which agreement to follow would affect the fiscal analysis. Post confirmed that it would, but that the fiscal analysis would need to be re -run based on whichever agreement was selected. Brauneis asked about the language in the city ordinance regarding the 12% of units required for inclusionary housing, noting that the language seemed somewhat broad. Post explained that the ordinance provided multiple options for satisfying the inclusionary housing requirements, and the language was intended to allow flexibility in meeting the goals. Brauneis asked if the ordinance could be satisfied by including micro -units. Post responded that if the applicant were proposing to include 12% of units for inclusionary housing, those units would likely need to be similar in size and design to the other units on the site. Staff would not accept micro -town homes as part of the 12%, since they would not be considered comparable to the other units in the development. Bangs asked about the setbacks, specifically about the request for setbacks to be anywhere from 6 to 20 feet in relation to fire mitigation, and whether a 6-foot setback would be acceptable. Post responded that, from a fire mitigation perspective, Planning wouldn't review or approve setbacks until the building permit stage. However, Louisville Fire Protection had reviewed the proposal for emergency access and had no additional comments at this point. Moline asked about the rezoning to MU -Residential, specifically how it was required to have two distinct uses, which he believed would be residential and commercial. Post agreed with Moline's statement. Applicant Presentation: City of Louisville Community Development 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 www.LouisvilleCO.gov