My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1996 12 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1996 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1996 12 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:41 PM
Creation date
4/13/2004 10:44:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/17/1996
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1996 12 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Donald Slack, SEM Architects, Inc, 7935 East Prentice Avenue, Suite 102, Englewood, Colorado <br />80111, stated that they are presenting a site plan that has its open space through a combination of soft <br />landscaping, ground covers, shrubs, trees, and hard-scape to create the kinds of open plazas and areas <br />that the preliminary PUD spoke to and what they and staff had been discussing. He reviewed the site. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Sisk did not want a drive-in included in the gateway to Louisville. He wanted the internal traffic flow <br />of the project to be self-contained. He was concerned about the stark absence of landscaping on the <br />northeast corner of the project. <br /> <br />Levihn asked who the other tenants might be. <br /> <br />Dennis Bass stated that the committed tenants are Peaberry's Coffee Shop, Fowler Real Estate (4,000 <br />s.f), One Hour Martinizing, Fantastic Sam's, Pizza Hut, Mail Boxes, Etc., Laser Storm, and <br />(inaudible). <br /> <br />Levihn wanted to see the Burger King building drawings before committing to allowing the facility. <br /> <br />Mayer was concerned about the landscaping along McCaslin and the possible Burger King. <br /> <br />Lathrop was concerned about the signage. He liked the pedestrian orientation. He felt the big issue <br />was not commercializing the exposure to McCaslin Boulevard. He wanted the businesses identified <br />in a very subtle and decorative manner. <br /> <br />Levihn wanted the 14 parking spaces up against the property line and facing McCaslin bermed. <br /> <br />Slack anticipated a landscape hedge or a wall that would match the building construction. <br /> <br />Keany pointed out that in the land elevations McCaslin was about 20' lower than building "A". Since <br />people would be looking up into a large parking lot, he wanted shielding or blockage of the parking <br />lot. He stated that he would look favorably on the applicants putting landscaping on the open space <br />parcel. He did not like the large side of the building "C" facing out toward McCaslin or building "A" <br />facing the hotel. He suggested they be architecturally enhanced. For the signage facing McCaslin, <br />he wanted no open neon, nothing over -sized, subdued, and tasteful. <br /> <br />Davidson was not sure the shared-parking would work to the applicant's benefit because other people <br />would be using their parking lot. He had no problem with the 4.5 parking spaces. Concerning the <br />use of City owned land as a detention pond, if the City could get some sort of benefit from that, as <br />landscaping possibly. To do underground retention, the City was going to allow Home Depot to do <br />that, so he did not see why it would not be allowed here. That would be a preference. He did not <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.