Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 5, 2000 <br />Page 8. <br /> <br />drives. The site design complies with IDDSG requirements. There have been some <br />minor modifications made to address items in the Planning Commission recommendation <br />of approval. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum parking <br />setback requirement of 20 feet along CTC Boulevard. The last few parking spaces <br />encroach 4.5 feet into the minimum 20-foot setback. Staff and the Planning Commission <br />have supported the requested minor exception. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed the parking ratio of 3.0:1000 to 3.6:1000. He noted that the landscape <br />coverage is provided at 26.4 percent, meeting the 25 percent minimum requirement. The <br />Planning Commission recommended some conditions related to landscaping, all of which <br />have been met. Plant materials are compliant to the IDDSG requirements. Wood <br />reviewed that the architecture of the building is painted, site cast concrete and is IDDSG <br />compliant. The lighting also meets with the criteria of the IDDSG with two minor <br />corrections needed on wattages. The wall-mounted fixtures in the loading area are to be <br />limited to 175 watts and at the man-doors to 70 watts. With respect to signage, Wood <br />stated that a ground sign is proposed at each drive entry and potential wall sign locations <br />have been identified and are compliant with the IDDSG. <br /> <br />Wood noted that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application (5-0) <br />at its November 14, 2000 meeting with 11 conditions. All but two conditions have been <br />addressed. Of the two, one is a tracking condition related to the need for access <br />agreements/easements and the second addresses the minor lighting modification. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Applicant presentation. <br /> <br />Dennis Payne, DP Construction Inc., 790 Vista Lane, Lakewood, CO, stated that they <br />have complied with all the conditions, are in agreement with the final two conditions, and <br />he was available to answer Council questions. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />With respect to the design guidelines, Sisk asked Mr. Payne if all conditions have been <br />met, why request an exception to the setback. He asked why the building could not be <br />moved back, instead of having the parking infringe on to the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Payne stated that the exception creates a few parking spaces and because of the curb and <br />gutter, they felt that it was a reasonable request. He noted that they have a shared access <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />