Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 5, 2015 <br />Page 5 of 33 <br />presented a proposition to amend the language in the existing PUD to allow a 2 -story <br />home within the allowable 26' height restriction. He was asked to forfeit lot coverage in <br />exchange for approval of a 2 -story home. After discussing the matter, they decline to <br />forfeit any of the current allowable 10% lot coverage. They do not believe the lot <br />coverage should not be part of the discussion. He stated his understanding the Council <br />wants a written guarantee a future land owner will not build a structure or addition to <br />block the views. He suggested this would best be handled by mandating any additions <br />or improvements to the property be reviewed by the Home Owners Association (HOA) <br />and the Design Review Committee (DRC). They have already received endorsements <br />from the HOA and the DRC for a 2 story home and approved the placement of the <br />footprint for the home. He requested the Council change the language to allow the two <br />story structure. <br />Tiera Nell, 2287 S. Columbine, Denver CO, co -owner of the property, reviewed their <br />proposal through a conceptual plan, which reflected the difference between a one -story <br />and two -story house on the lot. She noted the blue spruces in the area, when they <br />reach the maximum height will be taller than their proposed house. She explained the <br />second story is a cape top and will be smaller than the first floor. She stated this project <br />will have a smaller footprint, decreasing the amount of cement and have more land for <br />water absorption. She felt it would also be a benefit for Louisville by decreasing the <br />blockage for the views. She noted this project was unanimously supported by the <br />Planning Commission and has the strong support of the HOA. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br />Council member Loo commented on the lovely design for the home, but questioned why <br />the applicant is not flexible on lot coverage. Mr. Weiss stated they did not want to do <br />anything to hurt the value of the property. He explained the home would still be the <br />same height so it did not seem appropriate to reduce the lot coverage. <br />Council member Loo stated her understanding that the PUD did not have any <br />restrictions on roof pitches. If the change is made without an altered lot coverage <br />agreement, there would be nothing to prevent a person from building a massive 9,800 <br />SF, flat- roofed home. Her concern centered on the property changing hands and a <br />massive structure being built. Mr. Weiss explained the lot to the south is a 1 story, 26' <br />high home with the ability to cover 10% of the lot. He questioned why his lot would be <br />any different. <br />Council member Loo inquired about the regulations for roof pitch. Planning and <br />Building Safety Director explained in the current PUD regulations there is nothing <br />governing roof pitch. He noted an applicant could come forward with a request for a <br />26' high, 1 story, 9,800 SF home with a flat roof, but it would have an enormous vaulted <br />ceiling. Architecture and practicality would limit such a structure. Council member Loo <br />