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 4 of 16 <br />Hsu asked why the second and third floors were a different look than the first floor. <br />Hartronft replied that they did not want to create a monolithic building by carrying <br />through the same materials and design from the second and first stories to the third <br />story. There was also a specific design guideline that says a third floor should look <br />different than the rest of the building and should look like an addition that was put on <br />later. They thought a more transparent third floor would feel lighter and would tend to <br />recede more than if it were a more massive, solid design. <br />Williams asked if the office space was designed for multiple tenants. <br />Hartronft responded that it was currently designed for a single tenant, but it could <br />accommodate more. <br />Williams asked if Boulder Creek Neighborhoods was planning to stay in the new <br />building. <br />David Sinkey, Founder and President of Boulder Creek Neighborhoods, 712 Main <br />Street in Louisville, replied that the company had not made a decision. They were <br />looking for bigger buildings so they could accommodate all their employees. They were <br />far enough along on this proposal that they wanted to see it taken forward whether <br />Neighborhoods ended up occupying it or not. Sinkey added that the ground floor could <br />accommodate as many as three retail spaces. He explained that they created a lobby to <br />make an entry environment for the second floor. <br />Williams asked what the third floor could be used for. <br />Sinkey replied that it was essentially an amenity space for employees and could be <br />used as a kitchen or for company events space. It would not be used as restaurant or <br />retail space. <br />Williams stated that the design was well thought-out and an improvement on the <br />previous proposal. She pointed to the amount of glass was an improvement over the <br />last application and noted the appeal of the street music, skyline -feel of the varying <br />heights. On the parking, she thought that the ingress/egress separation was an <br />improvement over the last proposal and she understood why the parking was about <br />half. She asked for the total square footage of the current buildings. <br />Sinkey responded that 712 Main was roughly 5,600 square feet and 722 Main was <br />roughly 1,700-1,900 square feet. <br />Howe asked for clarification on the movement of cars in and out of the garage and if <br />there was enough room for delivery trucks, pedestrians, and cars. <br />Hartronft responded that the ramp ended at the property line. Hartronft added that they <br />used a turning radius template to ensure there would be enough space. He <br />acknowledged that a delivery truck parked in front of the ramp, it would block the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.