Planning Commission Minutes 2016 09 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 13, 2016 Page 5 of 31 and decided to move the building 6' down, and make some changes on the back side of it. These buildings have been submitted for a permit. We think this is a good product. Kipfer shows a color elevation. The front of this product is unchanged from what you see now. We are ready to start construction once this is approved. Commission Questions of Applicant: Moline asks apart from the solar access issue with the neighbor to the north, did they have any other concerns with your proposal? Kipfer says this was the main concern. They had a question about the alley to the north. The alley continues to a piece of open space where we will install an open rail fence and it is consistent with the look we have on all open space. We believe the neighbor is in support. Brauneis says you mentioned 6', but Robinson mentioned 5'. Kipfer says the actual setback is 12' from the property line, and the PUD has a 6' rear minimum. This building is not very deep so we pushed it another 6'. It is a total of 12' off the back. There is ample room in the front for the courtyards we are proposing. Brauneis says it is six units and is staying six units. Are they larger in square footage? Kipfer says they are not larger in square footage. It is a little different design. We had an elevation change on these, trying to stay with the market and keep designs current. Hsu says can you speak briefly on what prompted the change from the original design to this design? Kipfer says the original design was an older model townhouse. It was a gabled roof repetition. This is more in line with some of the condominium products we are doing that have more flat roofs, flatter elements, and sheds off the side. It is more current and is an interesting look. I think it is more marketable. Public Comment: Mark Cathcart, 1763 Sweet Clover Lane, Louisville, CO I am the immediate neighbor in a single story ranch behind the alley. I did have some concerns originally. I'd like to thank Chad and Markel Homes for accommodating me. I had two concerns and the second one Chad did not mention, which is the sound of the air conditioning units that will be on the north side of the property. From what I understand in his last email, he has agreed to put baffling protection around those units. My house was specifically purchased to be a single story. I was very clear that I wanted to put solar on it well before the house was built. I am grateful that he has been able to find an accommodation for the solar. I remain marginally concerned about the noise from the AC units, but if they install the baffles or blankets, I will be quite happy with that. I am concerned because the two bedrooms we use are both on the ground floor on the other side of the privacy fence. Hsu asks Kipfer about the baffling of the AC units. Kipfer says there was a concern for the noise, so we are proposing to install a sound blanket around the compressor and inside the AC. My understanding is it cuts the sound by 40%. We are committed to doing it. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve North End Block 15 PUD amendment, Resolution 22, Series 2016. A resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the final Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for North End Block 15 to modify the building elevations. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice in support. I am happy when we can have a more marketable product that complies with our codes. It seems we have accomplished it. I think there should be a condition regarding the AC blankets.