Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 23, 2016 <br />Page 4 of 30 <br />Robinson says the BOA granted the variances so for the Planning Commission (PC) analysis, <br />they comply with the regulations regarding minimum lot size and minimum lot width <br />requirements of Title 17. It is a final determination on the issue. <br />Rice asks what is the PC deciding tonight? <br />Robinson says the other requirements of Title 16 require a waiver of minimum lot width of 50' <br />and the ratio of width/depth. <br />Tengler says the letter from Peter Stewart accepted into the record states 2) "it is questionable <br />if the BOA has the authority to grant a variance to lot size and frontage requirements. " Are you <br />comfortable that the BOA does have this authority? <br />Robinson says the powers of the BOA are to grant variances from any of the regulations in <br />Title 17. This is not the first lot that has gone through this procedure. One was done in 2015 and <br />another in 2014 followed the same procedure. <br />Tengler says the lot width is 100' currently. Why not go 50-50 and not ask for a variance? <br />Robinson says the desire is to keep the existing house so if the lot is divided down the middle, <br />you will cut through the existing house. It will still comply with setbacks. <br />Pritchard says the email from Peter Stewart lists four reasons for denial. Has Staff had an <br />opportunity to read it? Can we go through the email and respond to his four reasons. <br />Robinson responds. <br />1) A significant defining quality and character of Old Town is the diversity of lot size. This subdivision will <br />negatively impact the scale and character of Old Town - by eliminating a large lot and thus eliminating lot <br />size diversity. I believe this is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan section regarding Our Livable Small <br />Town Feel and the city's character and physical form. <br />Robinson says this is a valid point and policy question of lot size variety. This is one of the <br />biggest lots in Old Town and dividing it will make two average size lots. Staff feels this is <br />compatible with the Comp Plan. It is w h ant is requesting. This is a point for the PC <br />to consider as to whether you will place a v- . • iversityus allowing creation of <br />average size lots. <br />2) It is questionable if the Board of Adjustment the 6 .ri ' a variance to lot size and <br />frontage requirements. The purpose of the Board of Adjustments is allow reasonable development on <br />lots with restricting physical circumstances, not to create two non -conforming lots from a conforming lot. I <br />do not think there are physical circumstances which limit reasonable development on this lot as it <br />currently is. <br />Robinson says this was addressed previously. <br />3) The proposed subdivision does not meet Section 16.16.050 of the LMC - A. "Lots shall meet all <br />applicable zoning requirements". This proposal would create two non -conforming lots and eliminate a <br />conforming lot. I also do not like the fact that this type of subdivision may be used to increase density <br />(FAR & Lot Coverage) above what is currently allowed. <br />Robinson says Staff considers the BOA variance as compliance with zoning requirements of <br />Title 16. <br />4) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the zone district requirements. It is my understanding that in <br />granting a development waiver there should be some extraordinary benefit to the City - not simply a <br />benefit to the developer. There is no explicit benefit to the city associated with this proposal. <br />Robinson says the criteria for waivers through a PUD process such as providing some <br />additional public benefit is not the same as the requirements for a waiver in Title 16 which <br />shows hardship and public good. He may be looking at the wrong criteria. <br />Moline says it looks like the north half of the former alley way was vacated. Was the southern <br />half also vacated? Was the entire alley vacated? To clarify, is this within the Old Town Overlay? <br />Robinson says the alley was vacated and per standard regulations, it gets split between the <br />adjacent property owners, so they got the north half of the alley. This is within the Old Town <br />Overlay district. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Creel Kerss, 105 Roosevelt Avenue, Louisville, CO <br />We have lived in the 105 Roosevelt Avenue house for about 10 years. I intend to retire here and <br />build a new house. My wife just recently retired from her job last June, so we thought we would <br />