City Council Minutes 2000 09 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting September 5, 2000 Page 25. insufficient parking to support such a use. Wood noted that the PUD notes the type of restaurant and food service uses available to tenants in this building as a use by-right (donut, bagel and coffee shops, deli's, and pizza delivery). All others restaurant/food service uses would subject to Special Review Use authorization. Wood stated that thirty- eight parking spaces are provided, which is more than the minimum required for a retail use. The overall parking ratio is 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The minimum required parking ratio for retail uses 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Wood reviewed the landscape plan, which does not meet the minimum requirements under the CDDSG, but met to the fullest extent possible. The Parks Department recommendation of 1 tree per 20 linear feet along the common lot line with Lot 6 would result in an unhealthy growing condition since the same requirement would apply to Lot 6. Therefore, trees are provided at one per 30 linear feet. Wood stated that Staff voiced concern with respect to the grading and drainage plan, however, the final grading plan does reflect the site will be approximately 2.5-3.5 feet lower than what exists today, with a gentler slope rising from South Boulder Road. Wood reviewed the retaining walls associated with this property. He noted the CDDSG provides that walls should be constructed of materials compatible with the adjacent building, however, the Landscape Beautification Master Plan (LBMP) provides for landscape improvements along major roadway corridors and City gateways with a uniform system of improvements. The LBMP provides for a type of flagstone retaining wall as a means to effect community identity and denoting the visual edge of the City. Wood stated that the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission recommendation that the walls be constructed of flagstone. The Planning Commission had strong reservations about requiring private development to implement what they perceived to be a public beautification project. Wood reviewed the architecture of the buildings, which contains both split face and smooth face concrete blocks as a heavier bottom material, with brick above and a synthetic stucco parapet. The Planning Commission approved the proposed architecture, colors, material dimensions and distribution. With respect to signage, Wood noted that the applicants have worked together to develop a sign program that minimizes the impact of signs in this suburban-rural setting of the City while recognizing the needs of the businesses. The Planning Commission agreed that signs mounted to the south elevations of the buildings would detract from the open space at the southeast quadrant of South Boulder Road and Highway 42. The mutual solution was a shared monument sign along South Boulder Road in-lieu of south facing building mounted signs. He noted another 25