Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends that 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. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice says my view is this is a win-win situation. We are getting an improvement on Main Street. Johnson's comment about missing teeth is a good metaphor. We will get first class development on what is currently a hole. From the City's perspective, we may not get more parking but better parking in a better configuration. I think parking off the alley is a better way to use it. I don't like parking on Main Street which is a waste of space. There are some ideas with the parking that might, in the end, result in it becoming more parking. I think this is what City Council has in mind when they envisioned and approved this land swap. I support this. I want Kristen Dean to know that this was a terrific memo she shared. There is a lot of complicated stuff in here, and I found myself being able to work through it very easily because this was an exceptionally well-prepared memo. O'Connell says I am enthusiastically in support. I didn't have many questions because the report was so thorough. There are many layers and complexities to this. It was well handled as a creative solution to some problem spots. I am not concerned about deliveries. It is a fact of more dense development that deliveries will be made on the street. I see these as three relatively small retail spaces. I think this design is interesting and different for Old Town, but it touches on some of the facets of historic buildings. Brauneis says I am not as concerned about the "what ifs" for a number of reasons. We are not meant to go there and they will be dealt with as needed in the future if nothing happens related to parking. It will stitch the block together nicely. I am encouraged to see the connectivity between the back and front of the lot. It is a necessary important detail. I hope to see the City work out the 5' pedestrian walkway to the alley. Moline says I am in support. It is interesting when we are presented with issues where CC is working towards an agreement and towards a solution for a number of things. Sometimes we need to make modifications in order to make something work. There can be awkwardness with timing. It will be a welcome addition. I appreciate the detail of the front. Hsu says I think the team behind the application is good. It is a very thorough packet. There is a lot to like about this. It adheres to a lot of the policies of the design handbook with regard to parking. It is great for economic development, connectivity, and the community. When I first looked at the design, I was taken back that this would be built in Old Town. The pedestrian level views helped and the materials board helped. They do allay some of my concerns. I am not convinced that the subdivision code in 16.16.10 has allowed us authority to make a modification. I would like to make this work given all the positives. "Conditions peculiar to the site causing additional unnecessary hardship" are caused by the subdivision itself, not by the site. I don't think it gives us leeway. I think my interpretation of the code is correct. I'd like to see a creative way around it, with easements or covenants and licensing. I will be voting against it. Sheets says perhaps I need a little more clarification. To me, this is a unique property in terms of the way it's built. The applicant has the west part of the building, but does not have actual direct access to the alley or the street, because they are separated by ownership of another party. This property strikes me as different from any other development down Main Street. They all have access out the back door to an alley. I think it is a wonderful proposal in terms of fitting into the character of the community and what we need in a vacant spot. I didn't love the design at first because it seemed too modern. It certainly is an attractive building. The concern I have is the concept of dealing with it later. It is a poor way to plan this community. We have done that 18