Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JUNE 11, 2009 <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />12) Requested a clarification as to why the need for two surveys. Staff <br />explained it is a requirement of FEMA and the Flood Plain Development <br />Permit that was approved for a portion of the property. <br />13) Agrees to amend note regarding fencing. <br />14) Agrees to amend table. <br />15) Agrees to the requested correction of dimensional inconsistencies. <br />Mundelein continued with a discussion of his energy conservation building <br />practices as well as his job site management. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br /> Hartman requested Mundelein provide more detail of the energy saving <br />measures and what he means by historic character. <br />Mundelein highlighted a few of the energy saving practices as: insulated <br />foundation, insulated concrete form, cotton insulation and blown-in soy based <br />insulation. His discussion of historic character focused on the exterior, as well as <br />some interior features. He stated that the flood plain has created some design <br />issues as well as the 27’ height limit. The height limit is why he is requesting a <br />waiver. <br />Russell asked why the ‘crows nest’ feature had been included. <br />Mundelein stated it was only a design feature and provided no other purpose. <br />Russell and Mundelein continued with a discussion of two conditions. Condition <br />#8 is regarding the setbacks and building separation while Condition #12 <br />addresses the Flood Plain Development Permit and the number of required <br />surveys. <br />Tengler requested clarification of the fire rating and building separation. <br />Wood stated if the buildings are 10’ apart than no fire rating is required. The <br />condition is at the request of the Fire District. <br />nd <br />Russell discussed with Wood the requirement of a 2 elevation certificate. <br />Wood stated the requirement is a FEMA requirement because of the <br />development within the flood plain. <br />nd <br />Mundelein stated he would agree to the 2 elevation requirement. <br />Hartman discussed with Wood the request for the .45 FAR when the .42 FAR <br />was a condition of City Council during the preliminary review. <br />Wood stated that staff supports the applicants request because the actual <br />footprint of the building does not change. The change is the result of a lot SF <br />reduction. <br />Members of the Public: <br />Betsy Kessler, 156 S. Filmore Ave., Louisville, CO discussed her recent tour of <br />the duplex that is currently under construction. She stated the housing type will <br />attract people to Louisville. <br /> <br />