City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 05 19

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 5 of 33 presented a proposition to amend the language in the existing PUD to allow a 2 -story home within the allowable 26' height restriction. He was asked to forfeit lot coverage in exchange for approval of a 2 -story home. After discussing the matter, they decline to forfeit any of the current allowable 10% lot coverage. They do not believe the lot coverage should not be part of the discussion. He stated his understanding the Council wants a written guarantee a future land owner will not build a structure or addition to block the views. He suggested this would best be handled by mandating any additions or improvements to the property be reviewed by the Home Owners Association (HOA) and the Design Review Committee (DRC). They have already received endorsements from the HOA and the DRC for a 2 story home and approved the placement of the footprint for the home. He requested the Council change the language to allow the two story structure. Tiera Nell, 2287 S. Columbine, Denver CO, co -owner of the property, reviewed their proposal through a conceptual plan, which reflected the difference between a one -story and two -story house on the lot. She noted the blue spruces in the area, when they reach the maximum height will be taller than their proposed house. She explained the second story is a cape top and will be smaller than the first floor. She stated this project will have a smaller footprint, decreasing the amount of cement and have more land for water absorption. She felt it would also be a benefit for Louisville by decreasing the blockage for the views. She noted this project was unanimously supported by the Planning Commission and has the strong support of the HOA. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council member Loo commented on the lovely design for the home, but questioned why the applicant is not flexible on lot coverage. Mr. Weiss stated they did not want to do anything to hurt the value of the property. He explained the home would still be the same height so it did not seem appropriate to reduce the lot coverage. Council member Loo stated her understanding that the PUD did not have any restrictions on roof pitches. If the change is made without an altered lot coverage agreement, there would be nothing to prevent a person from building a massive 9,800 SF, flat- roofed home. Her concern centered on the property changing hands and a massive structure being built. Mr. Weiss explained the lot to the south is a 1 story, 26' high home with the ability to cover 10% of the lot. He questioned why his lot would be any different. Council member Loo inquired about the regulations for roof pitch. Planning and Building Safety Director explained in the current PUD regulations there is nothing governing roof pitch. He noted an applicant could come forward with a request for a 26' high, 1 story, 9,800 SF home with a flat roof, but it would have an enormous vaulted ceiling. Architecture and practicality would limit such a structure. Council member Loo 36