City Council Minutes 2016 02 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Page 5 of 20 Council member Loo stated on the owner's proposal, the square footage on the lot is increased by four square feet. She stated Council should have a clear understanding of what the actual square footage is. She addressed Lots 1 and 2 and asked how many units could be built on each lot. Principal Planner McCartney explained the applicant is asked to use the constraints of the property to determine what can be built. It would depend on the MUDDSG for density, parking requirements and other uses (residential, commercial and office). Council member Loo addressed the three scenarios of the two lots, and asked which would have the most density and which the least density. Principal Planner McCartney stated in looking at the original proposal, with no lot line adjustments, Lot 2 could have three units in the RM Zone District and Lot 1 could have 2 residential units in the M -UR Zone District. He noted without seeing any design, it would be difficult to determine the number of permitted units. The M -UR Zone District allows a higher density than the RM Zone District. PUBLIC COMMENT Debby Fahey, 1118 W Enclave Circle, Louisville, CO stated this has been the most complicated proposal she has seen in a long time. She felt the applicant is asking for many adjustments, but not giving the City much in return. She felt putting the miner's cabins on encumbered land would put them at risk. She urged Council to oppose this proposal. Samuel Duran, 1109 Pine Street, Louisville, CO stated in the 1980's an individual purchased the railroad spur and asked if it was the current property owner. He voiced his concern that the Duran and Chavez properties will be impacted. He stated the survey lines run parallel to his property and noted there have been several surveys, which were incorrect. He noted there is a gap between his property and the proposed development. He was interested in seeing drawings of what the applicant intends to build on the property and their intentions for the house on 1125 Pine Street. He voiced concern his property would be impacted. Arn Rasker, 4782 Valhalla Drive, Boulder, CO, representing the applicant, explained the northern area of the property has always been a part of the parcel. All three Tots were purchased contiguously, at the same time and with a single zoning. The motivation to apply for rezoning and subdivision was to adhere to the City's mandated overlay of the property. The owner does not know what he will do with the property until it is subdivided and rezoned. He addressed the encumbrances and noted the Xcel easement is for gas and electric and the City's is for sewer and water lines and drainage improvements. They were told they could not build within the easements and stated the cabins could not be relocated there because they would be incapable. He agreed the property has been surveyed several times and noted adjustments have been made accordingly. The Planning Division had not found any problem with the proposed