City Council Minutes 2016 02 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 Page 6 of 20 development. He addressed the 8' strip of property and stated it belongs to the City of Louisville. He noted if the City wanted to put a walkway through there they could do so. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Council member Loo asked for confirmation that the 8' strip of land belongs to the City. City Attorney Light explained the assessor's office indicates this strip of land belongs to the City. If Council wanted 100% certainty, a title search would have to be done. COUNCIL QUESTIONS /APPLICANT'S RESPONSE Mr. Rasker, addressed the question relative to the length of ownership and noted the two brothers, Pat and Mike Dee, have owned the property for at least 15 years. He explained Pat is now a Pastor in Pennsylvania and the property assets have been split. Council member Loo asked Mr. Rasker about the history of the property. Mr. Rasker explained between five and seven years ago, the City of Louisville wanted to put the road through the property to connect to Lee Avenue. The City offered to buy the property but never concluded the sale of the property. It was his understanding there was citizen opposition to the project. The owner requested the City either purchase the property or change the easement so he could develop the property. Council member Keany inquired about changing the access to the Chavez property. Mr. Rasker stated they do not propose to change any access. He explained the Chavez family sold a portion of their property to Mr. Duran. He was not aware of whether the Chavez family kept an easement between the two properties. He questioned why the Dee property would be required to provide access to the Chavez property, when they never had it before. PUBLIC COMMENT Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce Street, Louisville, CO stated her understanding this proposal is for a triplex and now it is a duplex. City Attorney Light stated this proposal is for a subdivision and not a site plan for density. The density is driven by what the zoning will allow and a PUD is not required. Principal Planner McCartney confirmed a PUD is not required for RM residential zoning, but would be required for the M -UR zoning. Ms. Morgan asked for confirmation that Lot 2 would be for a duplex. Principal Planner McCartney explained it would depend on the direction of the lot lines. The original request would allow for 3 units on Lot 2. If the lot lines are adjusted it would only allow for 2 units on Lot 2. Ms. Morgan requested the division be made to accommodate the zoning on Spruce Street to only allow a duplex. She felt this would be compliant with the existing homes and would provide ample parking. She requested the Council accept the 15% land dedication instead of the cash in -lieu dedication. She explained the Highway 42 plan