My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1995 11 08
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1995 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1995 11 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:40 PM
Creation date
4/21/2004 10:19:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/8/1995
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1995 11 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
spaces or a ratio of five spaces/I,000 s.f. of gross building coverage. Cross parking agreements <br />between Lots 5A - 10A were proposed to mitigate potential parking problems. Wall signage on the <br />PUD allowed for one wall sign per tenant on the east (facing McCaslin) building frontage. For Lot <br />10A, the PUD allowed a total of 48 s.f. of sign area/tenant. A 3' h x 6' 1 monument sign was <br />proposed for each building as well as one 4'4" x 8' office park sign located at the intersection of <br />Century Circle and the extension to the south identifying a cluster of four office buildings. On <br />October 24, 1995, Planning Commission approved their Resolution No. 53, Series 1995, with eight <br />conditions. The applicant had complied with all conditions. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Jim Junge, Planner for the project, 9630 East Powers Place, Englewood, Colorado, reviewed the <br />project and felt the PUD met the intent of the overall business office ordinance. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments. <br /> <br />Mayer wanted a cross access easement between Lot 9A and Lot 1 for parking. <br /> <br />Junge stated that there was an existing cross easement on the double lots for vehicles. <br /> <br />Mayer was concerned about approving a restaurant in concept. <br /> <br />Junge explained that they established in the overall PUD the sloped roofs, materials, brick, building <br />footprint, parking, and character. <br /> <br />Howard was concerned about the medical office parking facilities. <br /> <br />Junge clarified the parking situation and felt the parking was very adequate in a shared parking aspect. <br /> <br />Sisk was concerned about the restaurant use. He did not want the possibility of two restaurants <br />opening there. He was also concerned about the signage on Lot 10A and wanted them to have unity <br />and conformity in terms of color in the office park in general. <br /> <br />Tim Hadjis, McCaslin Limited Liability Company, stated that on Lot 10A they anticipate having a <br />bagel bakery or coffee shop. He did not mind limiting the amount of square footage in that building. <br /> <br />Sisk wanted to know if the veterinary clinic would be selling any products. <br /> <br />Junge explained that the clinic will have some incidental sales. <br /> <br />Davidson was concerned that the project had too much signage. He felt an overall maximum number <br />of square footage of signs needed to be placed on the PUD and that it be a be smaller number than <br />currently designated. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.