Laserfiche WebLink
Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that the AO-T Ordinance went <br />before Planning Commission, who requested the following comments be <br />forwarded to Council: <br /> <br />1.) The Commission was unanimous in their support of the 60% <br /> open space and setback requirements, as being consistent <br /> with public testimony received during the Northwest Sub- <br /> Area meetings. <br />2.) The Commission did not support the building height <br /> restriction of 18 feet. Concern was expressed that, <br /> given the lack of language requiring pitched roof lines, <br /> this standard would encourage flat roofs. The Commission <br /> would support the AO building height limit of 25 feet. <br /> The Commission requested that language be provided, which <br /> requires pitched roofs. <br />3.) The Commission asked for the following clarification with <br /> respect to Section 17.13.080: <br /> a. Does the term "open space" in Section A imply <br /> public use? If so, the language should be changed. <br /> b. The use of terms "unobstructed" and "common" in <br /> Section A are not needed. <br /> c. Is the 60% requirement exclusive or inclusive of <br /> the public open space dedications? Also, is the <br /> 60% requirement exclusive or inclusive of the <br /> required 50' buffer? <br /> <br />Wood stated that concerning "a.", the two issues for clarification <br />would be, is that inclusive or exclusive of the open space <br />dedication requirement and if there was any concern about taking <br />out the word "unobstructed". He stated that with the 50' on item <br />"b.", there is a requirement for 50' unobstructed landscaped buffer <br />to be installed the full length of that common property line, <br />between commercial and residential. He believed that initial <br />language probably said, "in addition to the 60%, you would provide <br />the 50' buffer." In terms of the configuration of the lot, it <br />could be 50', as much as 5 - 20% of a piece of property, depending <br />on the size of the property. <br /> <br />John Durham, Land Planner with Norris Dullea Company, 243 East 19th <br />Ave, Denver, Colorado 80203, representing the Louisview <br />Corporation, owners of the 6.7 acre parcel at South Boulder Road <br />and Kennedy, stated that their site would be subject to the AO-T <br />zone, if they annexed into Louisville, which is the owners intent. <br />Durham appeared before Council at a Work Session on May 25, <br />presenting two alternative site plans for that parcel, as a <br />demonstration of what the proposed AO-T zoned district would do for <br />that site. He stated that at that meeting Council made the AO-T <br />more restrictive, so the concerns he had in May had been heightened <br />since his presentation. At that time they wanted to do a two story <br />building with the ground level floor sunk somewhat into the site 5' <br />- 7'. Doing a two story building allowed them to do the amount of <br />floor area they wanted to do in about 50% of the floor area. Since <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br /> <br />