Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 11 09

Home Browse Search

Cityof Louisville COLORADO • SINCE 1878 None was heard. Closing Statement bV Staff. None was heard. Discussion bV Commissioners: Howe said that he appreciated the clarifications from the presentations. He said that he read through the noncompliant parts of the proposal, but believed that these parts were in fact compliant with the LMC and comprehensive plan. He thought that the parcel had great potential due to its location, and that he liked the architectural style and sustainability. He also appreciated the applicant's forward thinking by allowing for the potential of ADUs and aging in place. Howe concurred with the public comment about the fence material, and urged the applicant to take the fire risk into consideration. He disliked the lack of affordable housing units and public land dedication, but he understood why the applicant chose the fee -in -lieu options for both of these. He was ultimately in support of the application. Moline said that he was in support of the application. He agreed with the conclusions of the staff report. He also appreciated the difficulty of fitting housing onto the site given the "funky" zoning of the area. He added that approval of the proposal would be a good first step to meeting the housing needs assessment. Osterman said that the presentations clarified most of her concerns, and that she was in support of the proposal. She concurred with the points raised by Commissioners Howe and Moline. She appreciated that it would add diversity of housing types and floor plans to Louisville, and that the design was aesthetically pleasing. She had some concerns about the requested waivers, but she accepted the arguments from staff and the applicant as to why they were necessary. Choi said that he acknowledged how long the application process had taken, and thought that it had been done thoughtfully and properly. He appreciated the applicant's push for full electrification, and liked the density and variety of housing types proposed for the site. He still had concerns about the fire hydrants, and questioned whether fire trucks would be able to fit between the parked cars in the event of a fire. However, he was ultimately in support. Krantz asked whether Choi would want any conditions on the approval if it were put before City Council. Choi said no, he just wanted there to be more consultation with the Fire Department. Krantz said that she liked the consideration the applicant gave to solar power and the compliance with the 2021 IECC energy codes, but she was uncomfortable with the number of waivers requested. She was not sure whether all of the requested waivers met the modification criteria. She was particularly concerned about the amount of usable open space and the buffer areas, and did not think that they met modification criteria 3. She thought that it was unfortunate to be losing the existing 10 mostly affordable houses on the site, and that they would be replaced by largely non -affordable units. She wished the