City Council Minutes 2002 09 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 8 In approving the parking lot plan, there was a vacant area that was left undeveloped. The proposed Phase II expansion would approve the initial basement addition to the north of the existing building. The building footprint would be 1,6540 SF, with a second floor footage of 980 SF. The applicant wishes to complete Phase II concurrent with existing site work for 917 and 901/909 Front Street to avoid future disruption of the finished site work and landscaping. The applicant is proposing to complete all required landscaping and site work as part of Phase II. Phase III would construct the main and second floor for the structure. Johnstone noted that the application is consistent with the design standards and guidelines with one requested exception to a City zoning requirement. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 33.2-foot peak on a portion of the roof element vs. the 29-foot. The height exception is limited to the peak of the hip roof element over the main entry and exceeds the 29-foot height limit by 3 feet. He noted that Staff and the Planning Commission supports the request. He reported that the Planning Commission approved the 917 Front Street PUD Amendment at their August 13, 2002 meeting. Davidson called for Applicant presentation. Erik Hartronfi, Hartkrofl Fauri Architects, 801 Main Street, Louisville, CO, Architect for the project, reviewed the proposal and addressed the requested variance to the height. He explained the reason for the variance is to provide architectural interest to the building and noted there would be no habitable space in the peak roof area. He also addressed the parking issues and explained the property is tied to another property through a deed restriction, which they propose to amend. He stated the applicant's desire is to complete the basement before any site improvements or landscaping is initiated. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayer commented that it would be an attractive building. He questioned the applicant's request for a five-year time frame on the PUD. Hartkroft stated when the 925/937 PUD was approved, a building lot was created for an addition to the 917 building. The applicant had not anticipated moving forward with the construction until he realized the extent of the finished landscaping improvements. He stated the applicant felt that five years would be a sufficient time period to complete the project. He explained at the Planning Commission level, it was determined that the five- year period would require a vested rights application. Therefore, the five-year request was dropped from the application. The applicant would request five-year vested rights to build the PUD through a separate application. Keany acknowledged the commitment made by Arlin Lehman to the downtown business area. He noted that Lehman has been responsible for the Street Fare for the past two years and had his own employees setting up and taking down the Fare. 8