Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2020 08 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2020 Page 20 of 24 Then the Archdiocese will eventually build a school or church there. That will be more immediate as a result of the infrastructure we are putting in. Brauneis says that they did not mention within the setback if they would be changing parking and driveway access. That is part of what is changing here right? Rhymer says that in the original parking orientation language, the GDP said the parking lots extending beyond the shadow of the building shall be shielded from S. 96th Street using landscaping that is a minimum of 30 inches above the parking level. Their request is to be able to put drive aisles and parking out in front of the building and screen that through enhanced landscaping techniques. Diehl asks if under the current GDP, does it allow parking along S. 96th Street. Ritchie says that when staff reads the GDP original language, it says buildings adjacent to or fronting 96th Street shall be located so as to primarily place the buildings between S. 96th Street and the parking lot. Staff relies more so on the first part of that sentence probably more than the applicant, who is relying more on the second part of the sentence. Staff does agree that the shadow of the building portion is not very clear. She then reminds the commissioners of staff's condition pertaining to this. Diehl confirms that the first part of that sentence does indicate that parking would be behind the building. Ritchie says that is how staff is interpreting it. Diehl says that looking at the city's visualization of the existing setback and the proposed, he asks if this includes staff's condition. Ritchie says the visualization shows what staff believes is the current GDP language versus what the applicant is proposing. We do not have a visualization of staff's condition. Howe states that this development is a gateway to Louisville and mentions that he thinks some other developments have parking in the front. He says he is worried about having parking in the front because this is more of a rural setting. Is the parking in front versus the rear a deal breaker for future tenants? Rhymer says that it is a deal breaker for not only the tenants but for the entire development. There is not enough room to bring the parking to the back of the property. Retail will lose sales if the parking is not at the front. Howe says that during your presentation, an image showed parking in the front and the back. You are proposing that all parking would be between S. 96th Street and the buildings correct? Rhymer says that is correct because more retail space needs a minimum of a 50 foot depth. You have to have a two way traffic drive aisle and then you have to have a 6-8