My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 01 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 01 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:16:47 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
1/10/2019
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 10, 2019 <br />Page 3 of 16 <br />Zuccaro replied that it was being designed for two retail spaces with a lobby area. <br />Hsu asked what space should be included in the parking calculations, particularly <br />whether the basement space should be included in the calculation. <br />Zuccaro stated that the PUD limited the basement space to storage, which could not be <br />occupied. Zucca and Voltage had similar garage allowances on their PUDs. The <br />applicant would have to come back through the PUD process if they wanted to use the <br />basement for something other than storage. <br />Hsu asked how the loading time limit would be enforced. <br />Zuccaro replied that the PUD required the applicant to put up a sign. Violations would <br />go through the typical enforcement process. <br />Howe asked for the width of the alley beyond the projections. <br />Brauneis clarified that the projections were encroaching into the setback space, not the <br />alley. Brauneis asked if any other buildings came up to the property line. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were structures that were not set back as far as 20 feet. <br />Brauneis asked for additional questions. Seeing none, he invited the applicant to speak. <br />Erik Hartronft, 950 Spruce Street in Louisville, stated that they had made significant <br />changes to the project and called the project an opportunity to transform the ground <br />floor from office space to a more retail -friendly storefront. He pointed out that there was <br />a historic structure south of 712 & 722 Main, which the design responded to. The design <br />also carried forward the architectural simplicity of the existing buildings from the 1960s <br />and 1970s while reflecting current architectural styles. <br />Hartronft noted that the building may be too small at this point to contain its current <br />owner, Boulder Creek Neighborhoods. Other occupants were interested in the second - <br />floor addition. Hartronft noted that offices generated sales for the downtown area and <br />that the first floor could attract new retail. <br />Hartronft described the materials. The proposal included warm and inviting materials on <br />the ground floor, architectural nods to classic western architecture, elements that <br />divided the mass of the building, and a two-story appearance from a sidewalk view. He <br />also noted the proposal's attention to the rhythm and street music of varying height <br />facades on the block. The back of the building featured a wall of stucco along the alley, <br />which could display a mural and encourage pedestrian use and interest in the alley. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of the applicant. <br />Hsu asked if there was a stairwell on the rear south side. <br />Hartronft confirmed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.