Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Page 7 of 23 <br />Dean responded that the Design Handbook had a number of stipulations for what was and was <br />not appropriate. For example, highly ornate designs are not appropriate, while flat roofs are <br />appropriate. The Design Guidelines calls for buildings that are of the current time but <br />acknowledge and reflect the past. <br />Williams asked how many other buildings have basements. <br />Dean stated that there were basements downtown, but she did not know how many. For <br />example, the Voltage building that was approved last year had a basement and there were <br />already a number of buildings that already exist that have basements. <br />Williams asked if this development was taking away from the 150,000 square feet left of <br />commercial development in Downtown Louisville. <br />Williams asked if this development was taking away from the 150,000 square feet of commercial <br />development earmarked in Downtown Louisville. She also asked if the building's previous <br />designation as retail meant that they had previously been counted as part of the 150,000 square <br />feet. <br />Dean replied that it would take away from the 150,000 square feet of development and that the <br />existing square footage was already included the overall square footage Downtown. <br />Zuccaro clarified that all development, commercial or otherwise, was capped at 150,000 square <br />feet. <br />Williams asked if this was the first parking garage Downtown. <br />Dean stated that the library had a parking garage. <br />Williams asked if like the library the proposed garage was public. <br />Dean stated she would left the applicant speak to the use of their garage. <br />Hoefner asked how many iterations the application has been through. <br />Dean stated that they originally submitted in September or October. Each application goes <br />through a review process with City agencies to solicit comments. The applicant responds to all <br />comments from the various agencies and revises based on those comments. Those are then re - <br />reviewed by the agencies and staff moves forward to a public hearing. The applicant in this case <br />responded to comments from the Planning Department that added an extra month to the <br />process. If the application were to be approved tonight, it would move to City Council on March <br />20th. <br />Hoefner asked how different the proposal was tonight than it was when it first started. <br />Dean stated that the architecture along Main Street is the same, but the third story was not <br />setback from the alley like it is in the current proposal. <br />Hoefner asked about the two PUD amendments for the alley and the balcony. He clarified that <br />there was nothing else that required a waiver. <br />Dean confirmed that there were only two waivers requested in the application, <br />