Planning Commission Minutes 2014 07 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2014 Page 7 of 14 provided. Why is staff determining that because of this green area, waivers can be granted to the other parts of the development? I accept the waiver on Lot 2 which is the proposed lot for the Grain Elevator with lot coverage of 43%. Lot 1 coverage is 52% which is a large variance to be given. Staff also states that these two commercial zone districts are the only two in Downtown Louisville that have maximum allowed lot coverage. It is recognized that their proximity to an established residential neighborhood needs to be taken into consideration. The maximum building height in the transition area is 35 feet and includes rooftop screening in the mechanical area. The Code also limits a building to the maximum of 2 stories. The additions on Lot 1 and Lot 3 are requested to be 35 feet tall with an allowance of rooftop screening to extend higher. They request to go from 2 stories to 3. These are not minor variances being requested. The only way to accurately evaluate the request is to see a design of what it would be under the existing regulations, one that has 40% lot coverage and 2 stories. We have assertions that this would not work out, that this is a better plan, but I am not willing to accept those assertions on face value. I think the Planning Commission has an obligation to determine what that design would look like and evaluate it intelligently before accepting it. We need to see a plan under the existing zoning regulations. Lee Ann Cast, 485 Front Street, Louisville, CO My property overlooks the warehouse as well as the Grain Elevator. Our concern is about parking. Since Jump N' Rope has opened in the warehouse, there has been an increase in parking. Since the road is closed, we have had to call to get clearance so we can see cars driving up County Road to get out on Front Street. Cars are parking in our neighborhood. The biggest concern is the corner of Front and County. This is not a two lane road currently. There is no parking on either side. It is a blind corner. With traffic being invited into the neighborhood, this intersection will be a serious traffic concern. Perhaps it can be made a cul-de-sac. Please go look at the intersection at Front and County. Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant: Brauneis asks whether staff is aware of the Front and County intersection. Robinson has not heard about problems with the intersection. Staff will be happy to look at it and see how it can be made safer. Moline asks the applicant if they have looked at the 2 stories versus 3 stories in regard to economic viability. Hartronft answers he can design a 2 story, code compliant project. The design is using sloping roof forms to mask the bulk of the building. We could go straight up, two stories, 35 feet, flat roof, 5 feet from the sidewalk on Lot 3. We could expand Lot 1 to fix the lot coverage if it is a math problem. Staff pointed out that the overall bulk is less than is allowed by code overall. We are giving away development potential by creating the green space. We are under the lot coverage at 38% as an aggregate. Brauneis asks about easement being green unless the City requires otherwise. Hartronft says he likes the language that Michael Menaker stated. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff agrees with the Michael Menaker suggestion of the easement being green unless the City requires otherwise. Staff supports the proposal with one condition that can be modified by Planning Commission. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice shares Hartronft philosophy. Keep the green space green but not start with a deficit of parking spaces. I am concerned about an open ended waiver of the screening over 35'. A full run of screening could become 40'. Staff assures me that this can be addressed in the final.