Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />January 2, 2001 <br />Page 3. <br /> <br />(some one-way) wrapping around the building. Loading and service doors are behind the <br />building on the west side of the building facing the RR tracks. <br /> <br />Wood reviewed the parking and building setbacks and noted that they are IDDSG <br />compliant. Parking is provided over the IDDSG minimum of 2.0:1000. There are <br />possible opportunities for a few additional parking spaces if particular tenants do not <br />need loading doors. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the grading and drainage plan is compliant. The stormwater detention is <br />to be located on the south side of the site. With respect to the landscape plan, Wood <br />stated that it is proposed at over 30 percent, greater than the 25 percent minimum. The <br />applicant's landscape plan proposes a cluster of five large upright Junipers to help screen <br />the two loading doors on the southern end of the west elevation. Those doors are located <br />in the public zone and could be visible if Cherry Street were extended. <br /> <br />Relative to the architecture of the building, Wood noted that it is proposed as a <br />combination of one and two stories and is designed for multiple small tenants. The <br />building would be constructed of site cast concrete panels highlighted by a protected <br />porch, which is surfaced with synthetic stucco and serves as an outdoor balcony on the <br />second level. <br /> <br />Wood noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, by a <br />vote of 5-0, at their November 14, 2000 meeting. The applicant addressed all of the <br />Planning Commission's outstanding conditions in a letter, dated December 8, 2000. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Applicant presentation. <br /> <br />Toby Bramble, Bramble Beck LLC, P.O. Box 728, Niwot, CO, stated that he is a <br />principal in this joint venture. He stated the Planning Director outlined the proposal. He <br />noted the design challenge of the proposal was to build in consideration of the site <br />constraints. He stated he was available to answer Council questions. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br /> <br />Sisk stated that there would be a parking issue if this building ever were converted to <br />office use. He asked for assurances that the building will remain industrial and not <br />converted to offices. Bramble stated that the PUD specifically states that there are 35 <br />parking spaces and occupancy is based on those spaces. He noted that any tenant request <br />for office use would be declined. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />