Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 8, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br /> The transfer requires an amendment to the GDP. <br /> <br /> The requested PUD amendment would allow for a smaller minimum lot <br />size and higher maximum lot coverage. The primary amendments to the <br />PUD are minimum lot area (3,000 SF vs. 4,000 SF), minimum lot <br />coverage (70% vs. 55%), and the allowance of lot consolidation to permit <br />duplex units. Lots 1, 2, 9 and 10 are proposed to be under 4,000 SF in lot <br />area. Therefore, the request is consistent with the waivers approved as <br />part of the original PUD. <br /> <br /> For lots that exceed 4,000 SF (even 5,000 SF) a 70% lot coverage could <br />result in a very large home and would not be consistent with the overall <br />PUD. <br /> <br /> Staff requests a note be included on the PUD that reads “70% lot <br />coverage is permitted for lots under 4,000 SF. All lots 4,000 SF and above <br />shall have a minimum lot coverage of 55%.” <br />Staff is recommending approval of the re-plat of Blocks 6 and 7 with the following <br />conditions: <br />1) Add a note under the “PUD Dimensional and Bulk Standards” table (on <br />sheet P-2) that states “70% lot coverage is permitted for lots under 4,000 <br />SF. All lots 4,000 SF and above shall have minimum lot coverage of 55%”. <br />2) Add the following notes to the Trail Modification Cross Section on Sheet 2 <br />of the Final Plat and Concept Plans: <br />a. All re-grading for trail modifications shall be re-seeded with the <br />native seed mix specified on the original plans and follow all <br />requirements of the Reclamation Standards for Disturbances on <br />City of Louisville Open Space Lands. <br />b. All requirements, including but not limited to materials, compaction, <br />slope and clearance, specified on the original trail detail shall apply <br />to all trail modifications. <br />Commission Questions: <br />Lipton asked what impact the amendment would have on the commercial square <br />footage. <br />McCartney stated the square footage would stay the same. The change would <br />probably create a Live/Work type unit in the commercial area. <br />Russell requested a clarification of the lot numbering and location. <br />Chap Kipfer, 5723 Arapahoe, Boulder, illustrated the lot layout for Blocks 6 and 7 <br />with a slide from the staff power point presentation. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Kipfer stated he had no formal presentation and requested questions from the <br />Commissioners. <br />Commission Questions: <br />Loo asked why staff was recommending the removal of the condition regarding <br />the fencing. <br /> <br />