Planning Commission Minutes 2008 04 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2008 Page 3 of 13 would also not be considered a contributing property within a potential downtown Louisville historic district." Therefore, the building may be considered historic because it is 50 years or older, but it is not considered a contributing building for historical character. He noted the property could be eligible for Local Landmark. . The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the Planning Department referral at the January 16th meeting. The HPC was instructed to limit their discussion to the new building. The HPC could not discuss the historic merits of the existing building as it would compromise the established subcommittee process for demolition reviews. The demolition review will take place when and if a demolition permit is pulled for the project. Staff is recommending approval of a final PUD development plan to allow for renovation of the existing structure, including the removal of the false front and the placement of a second story, with the following conditions: 1) The applicant must provide the City a payment in-lie fee or $3,600 for each insufficient parking space. Payment should be received prior to issuance of building permit. 2) The applicant shall include a trashlrecycling container on site. 3) The PUD shall be modified to add a note which prohibits tenant finish of the existing basement. Commission Questions: Hartman questioned why the HPC did not provide a summary statement of the front fagade. Wood stated according to the LMC the review of the current building can only be done when a demolition permit has been applied for the subject property. The review they were requested to do by the Planning Department was a review of the new building plans. Hartman asked if the City Council will have the advantage of an HPC review of the current building. Wood stated the only way that City Council would have that review available is if the applicant/owner has applied for a demolition permit. Sheets clarified that without a demolition permit the HPC can not review. Russell and Loa discussed with staff the parking ratio and the cash-in-lie payment as a matter of clarification. Loa asked about the sprinkling of the building and had the Fire Marshall reviewed the plans. Wood stated the Fire Marshall had reviewed the plans and did not have additional requirements for sprinkling. For clarification Sheets discussed with staff the floor area ratio (FAR) for the downtown core area. Sheets asked if there had been any discussions about retaining the current front fagade.