Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Approved – September 18, 2003 <br />The development breaks up the total SF into two distinct and separate buildings. The structures do <br />respond to issues of massing and bulk in the utilization of different roof forms, and offsets in the <br />building wall planes. <br /> <br />Wood discussed the landscaping of the project by sharing that it is the determination of the City <br />Forester that due to the proximity of proposed excavation and the under-grounding of utilities that the <br />Spruce tree located in the alley parking area should be removed. The recommendation for removal is <br />based upon the impact of development on a significant portion of the root structure so as to put the <br />longevity of the tree at risk. It is the recommendation that in lieu of the Spruce, three Columnar Oaks <br />be planted along the north property line. The Boxelder at the NE corner of the parcel will be preserved <br />and pruned. <br /> <br />Staff supports the proposed light fixtures and the resulting photometric plan has been revised since the <br />preliminary hearing. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed the five criteria relative to the Special Review Use. <br /> <br />Staff is recommending approval with the following 3 conditions: <br /> <br />1)A parking summary shall be added to the Final PUD Development Plan, which reflects that <br />the required off-street parking requirement is 19 spaces. Two of the commercial spaces will <br />be limited to short term (20 minute parking. Each of the residents will be deeded two <br />parking spaces, and the applicant will pay a parking improvement fee for the shortfall of four <br />commercial spaces. The parking improvement fee will be a total of $14,400.00. The <br />parking Improvement Fee shall be paid in conjunction with the issuance of the first building <br />permit. <br /> <br />2)The PUD shall be modified to reflect the revised rear landscape planter dimensions on all <br />panels. <br /> <br />3)The photometric plan shall be modified to reflect pole locations as identified as fixture ‘Type <br />A’. The PUD should also incorporate cut-sheets for all fixture types. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />McDermott: Is the building to the south of this project the same roof form as the southerly building of <br />the project? <br />Wood and Meade: Staff and applicant used a display to answer the question. <br /> <br />Robson: Explain the difference in the guidelines between Core and Transition for the core area of <br />downtown Louisville. <br />Wood: Core has a zero lot line, a greater foot print allotment, greater FAR, allows flat roof <br />construction and false fronts. Transition has setbacks from the property line, different roof styles, less <br />foot print allotment. <br /> <br />No other questions from Commissioners. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Rich Sands, 4261 Black Cherry, Boulder CO shared a few personal comments regarding his selection of <br />E.J. Meade as the architect for the project and his commitment to retain the commercial property and to <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />