Laserfiche WebLink
conditions imposed on the past PUDs had a possible floating number, rather a flat <br />number of two per 1,000 sf prior to building permit. The suggestion here is that it is not <br />necessarily a flat 2.5 or 2.0, it is whatever a future ordinance requires. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the one Council approved was actually four per 1,000 sf. He asked <br />Lehman if he would object to continuing this to the next meeting to allow the City <br />Attorney to write the specific language. This would provide more information for what he <br />would be agreeing to. <br /> <br />Lehman replied that he brought a copy of the language with him tonight. He suggested <br />that Council change the number identified within the language so that he could move <br />forward. <br /> <br />Davidson requested that Light review the language. <br /> <br />Light read the language: the owner acknowledges there is a need for additional parking <br />in the Central Business District and that the development approved herein will contribute <br />to that need. Owner acknowledges that it will benefit by additional parking in the Central <br />Business District and hereby agrees to participate in the financing of future public <br />improvements on an equitable basis with other properties and businesses benefited by <br />such additional parking. Such participation may include, by way of example and not <br />limitation, payment of impact fees and assessments. The owner further acknowledges that <br />if an improvement district, impact fee, or other mechanism for financing additional <br />downtown parking is not in place at the time of building permit issuance, the owner will <br />be required to provide parking to meet the parking requirement for the project at a ratio <br />of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross floor area, pursuant to Section 17.20.120 and Section <br />17.20.140 of the Louisville Municipal Code. This condition does not have the option that <br />the requirement of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf would be something different if the later <br />ordinance is different. He would not recommend having the alternative of a potential <br />floating number because if the ordinance is never passed, then there is some legal <br />uncertainty as to what the final condition is. For instance, if the ordinance died for a long <br />period of time and the building permit application came forward, then the City would be <br />in a somewhat unusual situation. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that another problem with the language is that it talks about things that <br />are not going to happen. He did not want to approve a resolution including language that <br />he knows is not going to happen, such as a parking district or impact fees, etc. He <br />questioned whether, after seven months, a two week delay would provide a significant <br />detriment to the applicant. He stated that Council could approve the parking ratio at 2.5 <br />spaces per 1,000 and if the ordinance is passed with a lesser requirement, Lehman could <br />come back before Council to ask for an amendment. <br /> <br />Lehman asked for clarification. <br /> <br />Davidson explained that Council could approve the project requiring 2.5 parking spaces <br />per 1,000 sf. There is some chance that two weeks from now ,some number lower than <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br /> <br />