City Council Minutes 2001 09 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 6 COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayer stated that Mr. Johns raised an issue with respect to the applicant compensating the City for the driveway easement. He commented that the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District obtained and paid for an easement through City land. He estimated that easement was paid based on 50% of the land value. He raised the question about the conservation easement and stated that the SF-E zoning on the property should remain. He stated that a conservation easement on the Annexation Agreement would limit the zoning on the property to SF-E. Mayer asked about the ability to construct a trail given ADA guidelines and asked Planning Director Wood if any further study has been done on the issue. Wood stated that he was not aware of any further study. City Attorney Light stated that the language in the Annexation Agreement with regards to the trail is that the City has the right to require the trail dedication, but if it chooses not to, can require open space dedication. If it is determined that the City does want the trail, there is no obligation to accept a trail that is not workable. Mayer voiced concern that the representation has been made that the City will receive an open space dedication that provides a trail. However, if the trail cannot be built to meet the ADA guidelines, the trail will not be built. He questioned what value the City will obtain from the annexation. Mayer addressed the issue of building size. He noted that Planning Director Wood stated the footprint could be up to 6,500 SF, which means the total size of the building could be 13,000 SF. He stated that there was a general understanding that the home would be commensurate with the other homes in Coal Creek Ranch. He noted that when the Single Family Estate zoning was written, a 5,000 -10,000 SF home was never contemplated. He voiced belief that a limitation on building size would be appropriate. Levihn commented on the forward in/forward out requirement provided for in the Annexation Agreement, and asked where vehicles would turnaround. Mehaffy stated that the intent is to have the driveway narrow to discourage backing in and out. He also noted that there would be a large turnaround pad in front of the house. Levihn asked City Attorney Light about the language of the public dedication in lieu of construction of a trail. City Attorney Light stated that the language in the Annexation Agreement addresses acceptance of the dedication. Levihn stated that with the revisions to the plan, the neighborhood consensus, and the annexation agreement, he would support the Maurer Annexation and development. 6