Planning Commission Minutes 2018 02 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 23 1. Comprehensive Plan: Outdoor seating contributes to a "healthy and vibrant" Downtown. Garage parking facilitates all parking needs being met on site and with alley -loaded access. 2. Economic Compatibility with Surrounding Character: Overall project retains 80+ employees to support local businesses. Project replaces ground floor office space with retail. Outdoor eating compatible with other restaurants that offer outdoor seating on site and in the Main Street patios. 3. Internal Efficiency: All parking needs met onsite. Increased walkway on Main Street. Drainage, sewer, and water facilities. 4. External Effects: Limitation on outside patio use (closes at 12 a.m. and no amplified music.) No nearby residences. No light spill. 5. Pedestrian Circulation: Increased sidewalk width adjacent to the building. The Plat was for vacating the interior lot line. The lot meets all the design standards and affords adequate water, sewer, drainage, and access. New utilities to the building will be buried and the existing utility line overhead serving private property will be relocated by moving the pole across the alley. The City will not incur the cost of burying the lines to private property. Dean stated that staff typically reserves the Fiscal Impact Model presentation for Council, but they went ahead and ran it for this presentation. She stated that there was a typo in the staff report. It should read "net positive impact" instead of "net negative impact." The model staff uses that considers employee impact is currently under review, so the model used for this application produced an estimate that is on the low side as it does not include employee spending impact. Dean added that $103,000-217,000 over 20 years in sales tax dollars or $5,150-10,850 per year from the project. The model depends on the types of uses and buildout that it includes, but staff wanted to show that the project has a net positive impact. Dean stated that staff had been submitting emails daily to the Commission and that commissioners had a printed copy of additional public comments that came in today. The Commission had received all public comment before considering the application. Staff finds that the application is in substantial conformance with all the applicable criteria and development standards and recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 04, Series 2018, recommending approval of a request for a Final PUD to allow for a 37,171 square foot commercial building which includes a 10,754 square foot parking garage on two lots totaling 14,114 square feet zoned CC, a Final Plat to vacate the lot line between Lots 8 and 9, Block 3, Town of Louisville and a SRU to allow for outdoor eating and drinking establishments and a parking garage. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Brauneis asked for conflict of interest from the Commission. Williams disclosed that she had been inside the Boulder Creek building, owns a Boulder Creek home, and has worked with the company as a member of her HOA. She added that she as a councilmember in Superior, CO she had voted on several PUD applications put forward by Boulder Creek. She stated that she still felt she could be impartial in her judgement. Brauneis asked for questions of staff. Moline asked if staff had considered visibility from other parts of the block and the area aside from across the street. Dean responded that the Design Handbook was conflicting in how it defines context. It does speak to the broader context of Downtown related to how the building fits in with other