City Council Minutes 1998 09 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lathrop stated that he asked for the last sentence to be added to condition number two because without it the condition is meaningless and the last sentence puts a measure to the condition. He agreed with Mayer's statement regarding personalities. He felt that Sally Janover's concern on how to increase the consumer traffic downtown goes to the heart of the issue - parking. He felt most of the parking is taken up by downtown employees parking for the day. He expressed support for the project, including the three conditions as stated. Sisk expressed concem that the basement is not being included in the FAR. He felt that the FAR would go far greater than 2.11 when the basement is considered. He agreed with Lathrop that the last sentence should remain in condition number two. He felt Council would be remiss not to include proposed conditions number one, two and three in this resolution. He stated that he does not like the three-stoW building and would prefer to see the project as a two-story building. He agreed with Levihn on resolving parking and building height issues. Mayer stated that leaving condition number two as written might not be fair to the applicant if Council adopts a parking plan or a permit system in the future. Bill Simmons, City Administrator, asked to follow-up on several comments from the August 4, 1998, City Council meeting. The plans contain a reference to cabinet-type signs, which is a contradiction to Planning Commission conditions. He continued that the proposed building materials on the north and south building elevations, which are the most prominent elevations visible from Main Street, show that is to be concrete masonry unit, which is more commonly known as concrete block. He stated that to the best of his knowledge, concrete block is not a building material recommended by the Commercial Development Design Guidelines nor a suggested building material in the draft Downtown Design Guidelines as a material that should be used on a prominent building elevation in downtown Louisville. He felt that use of concrete block would introduce a building material that is not in the historic context of downtown Louisville and would detract overall from the historical old town character of Louisville. Davidson stated that he reviews all downtown projects by evaluating whether it's a viable addition to keep downtown economically vibrant, and whether it destroys something which is historically significant to downtown. He feels the proposed building fits with the surrounding historic area. He agreed with Simmons regarding use of concrete block. He agreed with Sisk regarding a three-story building, however, the building is within the building height limitation for downtown. He suggested changing the sign approval condition to contain wording allowing administrative approval of proposed signs versus presenting each sign before Council for approval. He agreed with Lathrop that the last sentence in condition two is needed. He did not feel that condition would finish this project. He stated that Council will resolve the parking issue by the first Council meeting in October. Lathrop stated that Council's parking resolution would satisfy the condition as an "other mechanism for financing additional downtown parking" and therefore, would not affect this project. Sisk agreed with Simmons that the brick be continued on the south and north walls. 14