Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve Voltage PUD and Town of Louisville Replat A, Resolution No. 11, Series 2017. A Final Planned Unit Development for a 13,850 sf commercial building and a Final Subdivision Plat to vacate the existing lot lines and create two lots. 1. Prior to the City Council Public Hearing, the plat shall be revised to include a Pedestrian Access and Sidewalk Maintenance Easement across the western portion of Lot 1 to cover the public sidewalk which will be constructed on private property. Commission Questions of Staff: Moline asks about the creation of Lot 1 and what it does to Lot 2. Is a parking lot a principal use? Dean says yes, it is a permitted use. Moline asks if we are creating a lot that does not have street access. Is that what the subdivision modification is for? Dean says yes. Moline says we are waiving that requirement for the future Lot 2; it will not have street access. Dean says yes, to achieve the Downtown Design Guidelines. Moline says my concern is creating these kinds of things that are not compliant. Could this create a conflict in the future if the City decides to sell the lot? Dean says it is a consideration. Currently, the intent is that the lot will be used for parking. Sheets says my concern is related. In terms of this property, how would they get deliveries? How will the tenants get their product in? Are they expected to go through the front doors on Main Street? Dean says we had those conversations. Deliveries are made where trucks park on Main Street where there is parking. Because this building is set back from the intersection, Staff felt that short terms deliveries would not interrupt traffic. The parking lot is a public access lot so deliveries could be made through there. Brauneis asks about the number of parking spaces. It appears we are in parity. PC is aware of CC's intent for parking and is deferring to CC. Regarding the back of the building, are there no requirements for articulation? Dean says not for the rear of the building. Hsu asks about subdivision modifications under 16.24.10, which says "due to exceptional topographical conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site", we can make modifications to avoid an unnecessary hardship. What is our authority to make modifications? Dean says the PC authority is to look at the other regulations that are applicable to this site. These regulations govern development along Main Street and facilitate that parking lots be less visible. Without the modification and if there is street frontage, we would not meet the design guidelines. We weigh the intent of the design guidelines versus the subdivision. We do not want parking lots on Main Street. These policies are laid out for your consideration to justify the plat modification. Zuccaro says there is no exceptional topographic condition we are aware of. The PC must look at what other conditions are peculiar to this site that would create an unnecessary hardship. Staff says in Downtown, these subdivision regulations were written for the entire city. What is peculiar to this site is it is in Downtown with a set of Downtown Guidelines we are trying to implement and achieve. There is a little disconnect between the Downtown Design Guidelines which are peculiar to this site and not applicable to the rest of the city. It is causing an unnecessary hardship for the City and the applicant to achieve the design intent. Hsu says if the subdivision part fails, do we have anything to do with the PUD? It is dead? Dean says the two are running concurrently. If the subdivision is not approved, then PUD is not approved. Hsu says the minutes from the Historic Preservation Commission seem to have a negative view of the building design. Is that a fair assessment? Dean says Lauren Trice presented this application to HPC. It is not well captured in the minutes. As they discussed it initially, they had a negative response but later, they did soften their view of this Downtown development. The HPC is not an advisory body to any regulatory 13