Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 9, 2015 <br />Page 13 of 27 <br />Russ says that is a Downtown ordinance. This particular use does not provide that option. <br />Public Comment: <br />Debby Fahey, 1118 W Enclave Circle, Louisville, CO <br />She likes the idea of a residential -commercial combination on Main Street with a single family <br />unit. Her concern is someone buying two or three adjoining businesses, combining them into <br />one large single front, and then building a unit behind it. When giving the approval for zoning, <br />can there be a tie where the owner has to maintain at least the minimum amount of retail square <br />footage that existed in the old building? She is concerned that new buildings will be built and <br />that old shops will be torn down. Perhaps this can be an incentive for landmarking; if you <br />landmark, you can put a single family unit on the back. <br />Andy Johnson, 920 Lincoln Avenue, Louisville, CO <br />He is in support of this ordinance. He thinks this is a self -correction from modern zoning and <br />separation of uses across our town and landscape. This is a use type that is no stranger to <br />towns across the United States, and certainly not to the heritage of Louisville. Troy Russ <br />demonstrated this with a few site plans taken from very old maps. He supports the inclusion of <br />the MU district. While there are certain parts of Louisville that are designated MU, he thinks <br />some of the newer parts are intriguing to keep as a consideration. One of the most important <br />things this ordinance does in bringing Live -Work back to Louisville is that it offers a <br />diversification of building types within our Downtown. He thinks the way it is written is very well <br />done. It promotes and encourages the landmarking of existing building, which is very important, <br />particularly for our iconic Main Street. It also protects our Main Street from future development <br />in that we will probably not see another three story building on our Main Street. The viability <br />economically is retail, restaurants, and offices to some degree. The scale of what happens on <br />Main Street is somewhat protected by having the use be defined as commercial on Main Street <br />and residential in back. He thinks this is a really important distinction worth of further thought <br />and consideration. When you are thinking about the implication architecturally on Main Street, <br />he thinks the scale of buildings will remain low. Also with a Live -Work model, there typically is a <br />diversification within the sites so the commercial buildings will have a certain look. The <br />residential building is probably going to be something different. He thinks it offers a unique <br />character, both to Main Street, Front Street, and our alleys as well. The parking is obviously an <br />important consideration. The waiver for landmarked buildings is very important. It is a great <br />bone to throw at commercial building owners. It is also a great bone to throw at people who buy <br />a commercial building and consider redevelopment. Parking is expensive to buy. Parking <br />obviously takes up a lot of real estate and takes away from the economic vitality of smaller <br />properties around Old Town. He does have a specific concern that he doesn't think the PC can <br />address but it does come out of the Municipal Code. It is Chapter 13 which deals with water. <br />With a Live -Work project, he thinks it is important to allow a single owner to have a single tap <br />and a single bill. If you have the same owner paying the water bill, it can be structured for the <br />ease of billing from the City's perspective. The issue can be remedied by having a single bill, <br />look at it as a commercial water tap, and do it based on demand. He knows the PC won't <br />address it, but he does want it part of public record to be read at a later date. This is something <br />that will correct moderate planning for Downtown. He thanks Planning for bringing it to the <br />table. <br />Sherry Sommer, 910 S Palisade Court, Louisville, CO <br />She has a question more than a comment. Will this change the footprint of buildings and the <br />height of buildings? Will it remain about the same? If it does, she is concerned the Downtown <br />area would feel very dense if it allows larger footprints. <br />Russ says there is nothing in the ordinance that modifies the yard bulk standards. The floor area <br />allowances would be unchanged from what is currently allowed. This simply gives another <br />economic opportunity for investment and he believes it is a strategy for smaller parcels to retain <br />