City Council Minutes 1999 03 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

equipment within the third story well is fully screened in plan view with the exception of the top 1'-2' feet. The revised PUD sign criteria does restrict the type of signage to painted wood or metal, mesh type signs with cut-out letters or back-lit cut out letters illuminated by indirect light sources. Further, awnings are not eligible surfaces for signage nor would there be backlighting of the awnings. In response to the Planning Commission recommendations, the revised PUD reflects all recommended changes to the sign. The maximum letter height is 18". Other than one building identification sign, no signage is allowed above the first floor. Window signage has been revised to reflect a maximum of 20% of window area or 8 square feet, or whichever is less. The Planning Commission held two public hearings on this request. The Commission acted on October 29, 1998 approving a preliminary PUD by Resolution No. 58, Series 1998. The second and final public hearing was conducted on February 9, 1999 in which the Commission, by a vote of 4:1, approved Resolution No. 9, Series 1999 which forwards a conditional recommendation of support to the City Council. The Commission approved the Final PUD with 6 conditions. All conditions have been addressed on the Final PUD. Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. Adin Lehman, 908 Main Street, Louisville, provided a brief review of the project. He stated that at the time he purchased these properties, the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines were under consideration. He inquired whether the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines, if adopted, would apply to his project and staff's reply was, no. After observing Council's actions on several projects, it was obvious to him that the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines would apply to his project. He has revised his building several times in response to Council comments. He stated that the project provides more than the earlier parking requirement of two spaces per 1,000 sf. He cited the Council's earlier approval of a project for 728 Main Street with a three-story element as reasoning for Council to approve this three-story project. He stated that he has other properties that he can use to provide additional parking; however, this would require paving six lots downtown. The Planning Commission felt that there was sufficient unutilized parking along Front Street to provide parking for this project and asked that he remove the diagonal parking. He expressed willingness to remove the third story element, if Council prefers. He stated that he is asking for a height exception to go above thirty-five feet, not twenty-nine feet, as this was the building height restriction in effect at the time he submitted his application. However, he did not believe that the lower height limitation should apply to his project. He questioned the fairness of applying the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines to his project at this point in time. He requested that Council approve his project with the same parking requirement language that was included for the project at 13