Laserfiche WebLink
Cityof <br />Louisville <br />COLORADO • SINCE 1878 <br />applicant could have included affordable housing units on the site, but accepted that the <br />fee -in -lieu was necessary. She was opposed to the application. <br />Baskett was in support of the application, and thought that it was aligned with the <br />comprehensive plan. She added that she appreciated the letter from Mike Kranzdorf, <br />which noted that the applicant had resolved their concerns about the development's <br />impact on neighboring commercial businesses. <br />Brauneis said that he was concerned about the requested lot coverage and setback <br />waivers, and that he was not sure the property had been designed for the benefits of <br />higher density. He was concerned that the development would not be able to foster a <br />community with its current design, particularly with the garages fronting onto the street. <br />He said that he appreciated that the design of the garages were necessary to allow for <br />the addition of ADUs, however he was concerned that the single family detached units <br />would be too large for the subdivision they occupied. <br />Moline said that he appreciated Brauneis' comments, and noted that there were similar <br />alleyways fronted by garages elsewhere in Louisville. He hoped that residents would <br />utilize the green space area in the middle of the property. He added that he shared <br />Brauneis' concerns about residents struggling to build community when their properties <br />are fronted by a garage, but felt that the planned common areas would make up for this. <br />Brauneis said that he wanted more of a front yard feel from the development. He asked <br />whether there could be some benches installed in the common area. He reiterated his <br />preference for having yards fronting onto the street instead of garages. <br />Choi said that he was concerned about the lack of lot setback from a fire safety <br />perspective. He added that he appreciated this was a difficult issue for the applicant given <br />the size of the property. <br />Krantz said she thought the development should have fewer units so that they could meet <br />the modification criteria, and that they should have more community and open space. She <br />remained concerned about the lack of usable green space. <br />Choi said that while amenities like playgrounds and open spaces were nice to have, they <br />were not requisite for development. He noted that from his experience, communal <br />amenities like barbeques were very rarely if ever used at the neighboring Clementine <br />development. <br />Brauneis and Choi discussed the merits of density versus the viability of the <br />development. <br />Osterman felt that the design and density were appropriate given its proximity to <br />downtown. She added that this would likely not be an appropriate development elsewhere <br />in Louisville. She noted that the lack of a yard may be desirable for situations like aging <br />in place, as the paved surface would not require the same level of upkeep. <br />Howe said that initially concerned about compliance with modification criteria 1, but then <br />felt that the changes were appropriate for the neighborhood. He noted that changing the <br />dimensions of the lots would affect the affordability of the houses, and that not having a <br />large yard would help to keep maintenance costs down. He felt that Louisville had <br />sufficient community for residents, which negated the need for community space within <br />