City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

height of 60 feet. That should be revised to 32.5 feet, without the tower. A proposed tower element of the building had extended to 50 feet. However, the Planning Commission recommendation of approval requires removal of the tower, which the applicant has done in the revised plans. As indicated in the applicant's response letter, they would like to request approval of the tower from Council, and to that end, have also included building elevation drawings with a tower reinstated. Mechanical units are all located on top of the kitchen portion of the building. They will be enclosed and fully screened by a stucco RTU enclosure. Parking lot lighting is provided with 250-watt metal halide fixtures on 22-foot poles. That fixture is a fairly typical 'shoe-box' design. More decorative fixtures are used for pole lights in pedestrian areas and for the wall-mounted fixtures associated with the exterior patios and decks. The wall-mounted fixtures are 70-watt metal halide fixtures, as are the bollard lights that are used in some pedestrian areas. The lighting recommendations from the Planning Commission have generally been met. However, fixture cut sheets still need to be added to the PUD plans. Staff also has one additional area of concern where lighting levels fall below Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines minimum standards. At the main drop-off area, there are some readings below 1.0 foot- candles. By raising the height of some of the 12-foot pedestrian style pole lights up to a maximum of 18 feet, Staff believes the 1.0 standard would be met. Two ground-mounted signs area proposed, one at each of the two drive entries. The applicant is requesting two ground signs in exchange for not requesting any wall signs. The design of the signs is consistent with building architecture and the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines. The signs are fairly discreet with pin- mounted metal letters with ground mounted illumination. Staff and the Commission have supported the sign request. Section 17.40.100(A) of the Louisville Municipal Code lists five criteria to be considered by the Planning Commission in reviewing a Special Review Use application: That the proposed use/development is consistent in all respects with the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan and of this chapter, and that it would not be contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the city or the immediate neighborhoo& Staff finds no conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan in regards to the land use. The proposal is for a type of facility that does not currently exist in the City. The proposed use would provide a needed restaurant service both to the industrial park employees and to the community at large. Staff has raised the concern of a potential conflict with a new roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan. That such use/development will lend economic stability, compatible with the character of any surrounding established areas; 13