Laserfiche WebLink
story project, could the applicant approach Council at a later date with a two-story <br />proposal for the same amount of square footage as the three-story proposal. <br /> <br />Wood replied it would depend on how much parking has to be exacted and why. They <br />certainly could expand the footprint on the lot. <br /> <br />Davidson disagreed with Mayer that the City would need to provide additional two-hour <br />parking, as the parking studies indicate that the two-hour parking currently available <br />would be adequate. <br /> <br />Keany asked Hartronft for the height of the State Mercantile Building, to the roofline. <br /> <br />Hartronft replied it is approximately thirty-five feet high. <br /> <br />Keany asked for clarification that the roofline proposed for 901-909 Main Street is thirty- <br />eight feet. <br /> <br />Hartronft explained that this results from the thirty-five foot limit contained in the <br />Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines plus a four-foot parapet for <br />mechanical screening. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that in the Downtown Louisville Framework Plan, which Council just <br />adopted, under 'Architectural Scale & Character Policies' it reads permit development at <br />a two-story scale with third-story buildings permitted when defined goals are achieved. <br />These goals could include reserving a portion of the building for providing public spaces <br />such as plazas or significant outdoor dining areas, providing public art and meeting <br />defined historic preservation goals. He explained that he supports the third-story proposal <br />because he feels it meets those criteria. It also fits within the total number of square feet <br />for the area. He commended Hartronft and Lehman for meeting the intent of the <br />Framework Plan, even though it hadn't been adopted. If Council did, indeed,' not want <br />three-story buildings at all, then this section of the Framework Plan should not have been <br />adopted. Davidson agreed with Levihn and Mayer that he would prefer to see the parking <br />plan come forward with the building proposal. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, asked Wood for clarification on whether a parking lot <br />development coming forward on its own would require a PUD. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />Light asked whether the parking lot would also have to be designed pursuant to the <br />parking lot criteria in the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines, <br />including the landscaping requirements. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br /> <br />