Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April; 10, 2014 Page 5of 37 McCartney says we can definitely do that. It is something that can be placed as a condition. Applicant Presentation: Emily Kean, 1017 Grant Avenue, Owner. She is a local Louisville resident for 12 years with her husband and children.She is a Child Psychologist with a private practice in Louisville. She wants to provide good children services in Louisville; interdisciplinary and collaborative services including psychotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy services, and educational support. This building is an opportunity to accomplish this. We know that there are many children who need this type of services and they are going to Boulder to get them. She’d like to have that available in Louisville and this building will allow it to happen. This is the goal of why she and her husband bought the property and how we are developing it. Their idea in keeping the front building the same is to preservethe Louisville image and old town feel. They also want to keep an amount of retail space,feeling this is a need in Louisville. This is a similar collaborative model to the Louisville Wellness Center which is a couple streets away, and it is an example of professionals working together with retail. She thinks this would be a valuable addition of children services which are lacking in Louisville at this time. Peter Stuart, Stuart Architecture, 1132 Jefferson Avenue. Disclosure is that he serves on theHistoric Preservation Commission. This is not an issue that would havecome before the Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission in a manner that would have any jurisdiction. It did come as a referral item for discussionand recusedhimself from that. To clarify the proposal, in regard to the framework plan for downtown, this is a good example of complying with the framework plan. Regarding precedence of existing similar examples of buildings, there do not appear to be many. In looking at the framework plan and some of the exhibits put together, one of the preferred options was infill behind existing buildings as opposed to tearing down the buildings on the street frontage. This is an attribute of this overall plan. With respect to the building behind the building, this is not a subdivision, not two lots but one single lot. Regarding the Building Code and theway it is being interpreted, although there are two separate buildings, from a Building Code standpoint, they are considered one building in terms of fire separation. It is one lot with two buildings or two tenants on the lot. All the lot area calculations and FAR are considered one lot, adding up all the floor area of both buildings. In terms of access, it is a downtown property and we do notview it the same as a suburban property where you want to put all the parking out in front. We think a lot of people will arrive on foot or be downtown anyways and park where most people park downtown which is on the streets or within the parking districts. Commission Questions of Applicant: Russell asked if the Commission would normally get a materials board for this. McCartney says that they can provide a materials board and they would bring it to this meeting. Russell asks if a materials board is available. It is not critical to his decision but at previous meetings, we have sent someone out to get one.