City Council Minutes 1998 08 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Davidson stated that he felt the first two stories of this building do fit the historic style of downtown Louisville. He stated that no one has objected to the State Mercantile building, which is three-stories; however, the other building on Main Street created objections. He feels it has more to do with the look of the building, not necessarily the third story. Davidson stated that if the City enforced the two- hour parking limit, it would overflow parking onto the residential streets. He asked Wood if the long- term parking was taken up with the current buildings. Wood replied that upon full lease of these three buildings, there would not be any available parking. Davidson replied that there doesn't appear to be more parking available for anyone. He agreed with Hartronft regarding sign approval. He also agreed with Lathrop that a definite timeline should be in place and that the deadline in condition #3 is too short. Davidson stated that he does not feel the project should be delayed until Downtown Design Guidelines are finalized, as he does not anticipate that they will be finalized soon. He questioned Hartronft's statement that previous projects were approved without parking. Davidson explained that those approvals came at a time when Council was trying to encourage business downtown. The downtown area has become vibrant as a result of those efforts. He stated that the Commercial Development Design Guidelines are the only guidelines Council has to follow and they would require approximately 47 parking spaces for this building. Davidson questioned whether there would be a resolution to the parking issue, as parking and a parking district have been discussed by previous Mayors and Council. The only entity building public parking in recent history is the City. He questioned that Louisville residents would want their tax dollars spent to provide public parking spaces so a business owner could expand their business. He questioned whether the building was economically viable. The City would be required to enforce the two-hour parking limit, which would hurt everyone downtown. It might also require issuing residential parking permits to prevent overflow parking. There would then be empty buildings downtown due to a lack of parking. Davidson questioned how Council could approve this project when there clearly is no parking for it. He felt that a parking resolution needs to be in place before the building is approved. He agreed with Mayer that the language in condition #2 is not clear. Davidson stated that he feels the City would agree to share the expense of providing public parking for downtown. Bill Simmons, City Administrator, asked Hartronft to clarify the different facades listed for the south elevation of the building. He stated that the renderings do not indicate any change in texture or color from the west elevation, which is brick. The plans indicate concrete masonry units on the south elevation. Hartronft replied that one of the Planning Commission conditions was that masonry be used rather than EIFS for sidewall. That wall might be screened by another building in the future; therefore, he questions the aesthetic expense for a wall that might be hidden. The Planning Commission agreed that it would be better to have a colored CMU masonry in this area that is the same color as the brick facade. 15