Planning Commission Minutes 1995 02 28

Home Browse Search

developer meet with us to address those technical issues. P/C Questions to Staff - There were none. Applicant's Presentation - Don Shonkwiler, representing H.D. Delaware Properties, 400 South McCaslin, Louisville. We believe that we have complied with five of the six conditions of the preliminary approval. Condition number two for the Preliminary approval, which is condition number one on Resolution 5A, is the only one that is in some dispute. For the record, the Gateway Design Guidelines specifically provide for compact car spaces if they are approved in the PUD. The compact spaces which are provided for here compose only seven and a half percent of the parking that is on the site. That is far less than most municipalities, including this ones, allowable compact spaces as replacement for full size spaces. Peter is quiet correct, although he doesn't understand and is not quiet as sure about the difficulty that is caused by moving that lot line any distance what so ever. This lot was created first, far in advance of the remaining lots that are to the west of this property. This lot was created specifically to accommodate these three buildings. With all due respect, we did not put a bunch of lot lines and then try to fit in the buildings. So just to move this lot line a little will cause difficulty. It has to do with the F.A.R. for lots 4, 5 and 6, on the lots to the west, and the opportunity to be efficient with the land here. That would hinder us putting in the maximum amount of landscaping on this site, and provide for the openness and the configuration that you want to see. Our belief is that the landscaping that occurs between these buildings is far more important to provide openness and the character to the site than a couple feet of grass in front of these units. We would hope that you would agree with us that moving those compact spaces really is not a necessary requirement and is an unnecessary burden on the property. If they are required to be removed rather than moving the property line we would have to go into the 34% landscape area and reduce it to provide those lost spaces. Moving the lot line is not an option to us. With regard to condition number one we would like that to be deleted as a condition. We have agreed to the extension of Dahlia Street as well as the sidewalk on the south side of the east/west driveway. The monument sign and reader board on building 'C' will be removed. Mr. Neuman will agree to have his architect re -look at building 'A' to the extent possible and look at additional architectural detail. The applicant has also agreed to the stucco finish. We ask that you approve resolution 5 A. Mark Neuman, Property Trust of American, 125 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe New Mexico. We feel we have made an attempt to address what was brought up in the last meeting. There'were seven points that were brought up. The first one was changing the building material. We have agree to change the buildings to a stucco exterior. We think that by changing to the stucco you get a different elevation than the one that was presented. It provides arches along the side of the building, instead of straight gabled roofs. We feel that has done a lot to break up building A as you see it from Dillon Road. With regard to condition number one on Resolution # 5 A, we are providing 34% landscaping. It is my understanding that the neighboring project ares in the range of 25 - 30 percent landscaping. We have a site here that is incumbered by a number of easements but we are still having to pay for all land. We have provided a site that has 36% more landscaping than is required by the ordinance. A lot of the 20