Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 17 of 18 historically for the time I have been involved with PC. We do, in fact, have the problems later. Why not, up front, deal with this access issue, deal with the delivery situation, and put it in the agreement? If it constrains the City, then they need to think about it. I think this is doable through an easement. Pritchard says I am in favor. This is what the City wants. This is what the City has been driving for in terms of a parking arrangement. This design will benefit them. It makes it easier for the potential of a parking structure. It gives the City options. I am not worried about deliveries. Most restaurants get their deliveries before 7:30 am. There will be no conflict with LES. This is a part of Downtown that currently does not have a lot of traffic. There will be adequate parking on the street. Architecturally, I appreciate what they are doing because it is unique. We have an eclectic downtown so this does not bother me. The idea of art potentially along the alley is awesome. What I like is that the applicant is thinking about Downtown and what is for the betterment of our community. These people are here on a daily ba d° I think this is a great project. Hsu asks what their interpretation is of "other conditions peculiar to ite" is. I think this is important for CC. Do you think a modification is needed? Rice says I think it has street access because it has alley access. I don't think a modification is needed. We are talking about the future of Lot 2 and about Lot 2 being landlocked. O'Connell and Brauneis agree with Rice. Brauneis says I don't view this as "kicking the can down the alley". We are trying to create a solution when it comes down to parking and the potential for the City. If we set ourselves up for a sale of Lot 2 who may want to develop and create retail dining, then we are setting ourselves up for problems. That is not where Lot 2 is headed. Should it get to that point, the buyer would go into it "eyes wide open", knowing they have problems. I appreciate the concern. Sheets says it is "kicking the can down the road" regarding the issue of access for deliveries. O'Connell says the applicant is telling us that in the resolution, there will be other terms. It is on the record and is up to the City to make sur cce continuous. Motion made by Rice to approve Voltage P nd Town of Louisville Replat A, Resolution No. 11, Series 2017. A resolution recommend g approval of a request for a Final Planned Unit Development for a 13,850 square foot commercial building and a Final Subdivision Plat to vacate the existing lot lines and create two lots; Lots 8, 9, and 10 Town of Louisville subdivision, 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. seconded by Brauneis. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Jeff Moline Yes Tom Rice Yes David Hsu No Monica Sheets No, wants access included Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 5-2. Planning Commission Comments: Sheets absent in June. Brauneis absent in July. Staff Comments: Update on Development Project Audits (discuss possible dates in June to conduct audit) Zuccaro presents. Staff wants to initiate this program with the PC. We want to create a scoring sheet to evaluate actual completed projects reviewed in the past; how well are we doing in 19