Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lathrop agreed with Keany regarding the height variance. <br /> <br />Mayer requested that the proposed lighting not distract residents in the area. <br /> <br />Ellerman replied that the lighting would only be used to illuminate the pedestrian-friendly areas and <br />was very subtle but he would not object to Council placing conditions on the lighting. <br /> <br />Davidson complimented the applicant on the building's appearance. He would not be opposed to <br />granting a height variance for this lot only. He agreed with Sisk with regard to the applicant <br />including parcel S-3 in the parking setback. <br /> <br />Ellerman proposed providing landscaping and maintenance to parcel S-3 to create a uniform effect <br />along Dillon Road, in return for including parcel S-3 in the parking setback. <br /> <br />Davidson stated he would agree to such a proposal. <br /> <br />Sisk expressed his disapproval of the project due to parking issues and building height. <br /> <br />Ellerman expressed willingness to compromise. He requested that Council approve the project with <br />conditions and allow them to move forward. <br /> <br />Howard stated that if the applicant would be willing to grade the project down by three feet, he <br />would be willing to approve the height variance request. <br /> <br />Ahnstrong replied that grading the lot would have a tremendous impact on the final drainage plan <br />for the project and would also violate the architectural integrity of the building. They would grade <br />the lot if Council directed them to, but would prefer not to. <br /> <br />Keany moved that Council approve Resolution No. 24, Series 1998 - Final PUD Development Plan <br />for an Office Building on Lot 5, Coal Creek Business Park with the following conditions: <br />1 & 2 As already stated in the Resolution; <br />3. That all wall-mounted lighting is down cast lighting and there would be no up <br />lighting; <br />4. Stands as is; <br />5. Strike from the Resolution; <br />6. Strike from the Resolution and add a new condition that landscaping along the <br />parking lot would be bermed to block any view of parking from Dillon Road; <br />seconded by Mayer. <br /> <br />Mayer offered a friendly amendment that there be significant offsite landscaping to the fifteen feet <br />adjacent to the parking lot to effectively screen the area from across the street, accepted by Keany. <br /> <br />8 <br />