City Council Minutes 1999 04 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the costs of meeting ADA and UBC requirements. Other Commissioners, while acknowledging that the proposed FAR was probably on the conservative side, felt it was generally in keeping with the desired and appropriate density and scale of development for Downtown. Some concern was also expressed that the data in the traffic study was perhaps overestimating future traffic impacts. The Commission also discussed the merits of the proposed second reading amendments, as outlined in Version 2 of their review. While they did not take a formal position, since neither draft was recommended for approval, it was Staff's interpretation that the majority was in favor of the original draft. Version 2 caused several concerns. There was concern with the equity to individual property owners if the pool of building area method was used. As with the Design Handbook and parking ordinance, the general feeling of the Commission was the ordinance should apply to the entire study area of the Framework Plan, east and west of the railroad tracks. However, they also acknowledged that further study of the greater Highway 42 corridor on the east side of the tracks was merited. It was also preliminarily suggested that the east side of the tracks might be an area that could potentially support more density, though not necessarily along Pine Street. Lastly, there was concern that the second reading amendments would limit and perhaps eliminate the City's ability to establish a Transfer of Development Rights program. Davidson opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak on Ordinance No. 1294, Series 1999. Erik Hartronft, 801 Main Street, Louisville, felt that this Ordinance contains a number of issues that have yet to be worked out regarding downtown Louisville. He stated that the FAR of 0.52 is very low. He was uncertain that a TDR (transferable development rights) program would be successful in this area. He stated that he believes some of the original assumptions in the traffic study are flawed. He agreed that downtown development should be limited to the capacity of the infrastructure for both traffic and parking. However, he did not feel that this has been defined yet. He stated that the east and west sides of the railroad tracks should be reviewed differently from each other. Arlin Lehman, 908 Main Street, Louisville, stated that this Ordinance sends the wrong message to anyone who might consider developing downtown. He stated that current ADA regulations require a sizeable building, and anything less would not be economically feasible. He expressed support for limiting growth; however, he felt that this Ordinance would create a 'McCaslin-type' appearance in downtown Louisville. He suggested that Council use parking requirements to control the growth downtown, versus FAR. Linda Armantrout, 817 Pine Street, Louisville, agreed that the traffic study was flawed, and expressed support for Hartronft and Lehman's comments. Davidson closed the public hearing and called for Council comments and questions. 21