Planning Commission Minutes 2016 06 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 5 of 30 see if we can get this lot split off and build a newer, smaller home. I was a general building contractor for 40 years, so I know I can build on Lot 2. We are both believers in smaller homes, not larger homes. We hear a lot of talk about too many people coming in and tearing down existing old homes and taking the charm away from town. We have seen it happen more in the last four years than the previous six years. The lots you are asking about that compare to mine in the Johnson subdivision are down Johnson Street. Most of those homes are 10,000 to 12,000 SF lots and they built them to the max. There is one behind us that is being remodeled; it should end up at 5,000 SF. It is huge. Down Johnson Street, most of those homes are well over $1 million. We see diversity around Old Town. There is a lot around the corner from us that a lady built a home on with a driveway to a back garage. She backs her car back to her garage. Her lot is probably 32' wide lot. It can be done. 2,600 FS is a large home when you consider you have a basement, so it can be almost 4,000 SF. We have not made the final decision of whether we will build next door or stay in the home and expand. We are working with a local architect named Chip Weincek from Louisville. We have tentative ideas but we do not want to proceed with the expense until we know a lot to build on. We have some very large trees in front that we hope to preserve. I thank Scott and the Planning Department for working with us and the Planning Commission. We feel this is a good fit for the City. This is your chance to have another small house in Old Town. Patricia Kerss, 105 Roosevelt Avenue, Louisville, CO I would like to address some of the questions and concerns about the narrow lot. When we first saw this lot, it was 11 years ago during a snow storm. The house was not very pretty. It had not been lived in for some time, but I loved it. We bought it and left the house as it was. It is a 1300 SF bungalow and I love it. I love living in the area. We are across the street from Community Park. We could have scraped this house and done a variety of things. We chose to keep the house. I appreciate people who need bigger homes. I grew up in a big house, we've built big houses, and we've lived in big houses. I see smaller houses in Old Town and see a smaller home that does not overwhelm the lot and other things around them. Our goal is to develop in a manner we think is appropriate. We have worked with a variety of people and this is considered more appropriate than a 5,000 SF across the street from the park. Commission Questions of Applicant: Hsu says the dividing line is because of the house. I am struggling with the statute Section 16.24.010 which states, "The city council, upon advice of the planning commission, may authorize modifications from these regulations in cases where, due to exceptional topographical conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, an unnecessary hardship would be placed on the subdivider. " It says we can only determine an unnecessary hardship after determining, first, the condition that there are exceptional topographical conditions peculiar to the site. What are those exceptional topographical conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site? P. Kerss says if I understand you, some of the things that we see as the people living there would be the beautiful 50 year old trees in front that would have to come down. If you lose that part of the house, you have to get rid of the whole house, meaning another scrape off. C. Kerss says that the back yard is beautiful. Because the lot is so deep, it gives the new house going in a larger back yard than most existing ones. It does not impose on the neighbors because of the back yards of the southern neighbors. The lot is 150' deep and it is more difficult. It is a practical lot to build on. P. Kerss says with the layout, we will be able to build a two car garage in the back, which is something we have always missed. We now have a one car garage. Hsu says my question is mainly about the 50-50 dividing line, not the depth. That 50-50 line could not be the subdivision line because of the existing house. An arbitrary line does not necessarily destroy the trees. C. Kerss says the setback is so the house is not removed. We are giving it a 5' setback on the house side and 5' on the existing house, so there will be 10' between houses. In order to get that 5', Lot 2 ended up at 42' wide.