My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2014 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:21 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 3:23:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2014 04 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April; 10, 2014 <br />Page 4of 37 <br />McCartney says that it is not necessary because the 931 South Street owner is fine with <br />the encroachment as is. They are allowed the zero setback and they have worked out <br />the issue. <br />Rice asked if there other comparables in this area where this kind of redevelopment has <br />occurred recently. <br />McCartney says that typically an existing structure iseither demolished or added on to. <br />The Bittersweet property has had that set-up in existence for some time. There is <br />nothing recently where there has been a second building in back. Old Downtown <br />Louisville is difficult to work in because of the lot widths and existing situations. This <br />situation was fortunate because the building was located so farto the east,they had <br />area in back. <br />Moline asked the zoning allows two buildings. Was there a consideration to having it be <br />one building and added on to the first building; <br />McCartney says we can ask the applicant. Code does permit two buildings on the <br />property as long as there is 5’ separation between eaves. They have more than the 5’ <br />required. One thing to be addressed is that they are keeping the existing building which <br />has the Main Street appearance and character and this is not common. <br />Pritchard asked if the City of Boulder allows this type of development any longer. He <br />believes the City of Boulder no longer allows this type of pseudo-subdivision of one <br />property in front of another. He is curious to find out more information about Boulder’s <br />thought process since it has been changed since Pritchard moved here. He asks if <br />McCartney can find out. <br />Pritchard asked how signage will be addressed. <br />McCartney says they can have a freestanding sign out front based on the Louisville <br />Downtown Sign Manual. Whatever they bring forward with the signs will have to follow <br />the downtown sign code. <br />Pritchard asked if the original house signage would have to consolidate the signage. <br />McCartney says correct. <br />Pritchard asks how many businesses downtown utilize the alley in this capacity, not just <br />for parking. We are in essence putting a business with an alley access astheir only <br />access. <br />McCartney says the reason the walkway was established was so they have conductivity <br />to the front. People who park there canaccess the office from the front walk. It is very <br />similar to what is found at Bittersweet where there are uses behind the existing building. <br />People can access from front and rear. <br />Pritchard asks if staff has thought about working with the applicant tohaving employee <br />parking only in the back,thereby pushing the customers to the street surface. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.