City Council Minutes 1998 05 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESOLUTION No. 24, SERIES 1998 - FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 5, COAL CREEK BUSINESS PARK Davidson called for staff introduction. Ken Johnstone, Acting Planning Director, stated the overall Final Plat and Final PUD for the Coal Creek Business Park were approved in February 1998. That approval generally dealt with overall park improvements; however, a conceptual site plan for the entire park was also approved. Johnstone continued his presentation (see attached Council Communication). Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. Greg Armstrong, TrammellCrow Company, stated that they did, in fact, do a biological survey on the property and the results demonstrated no prairie dog habitats or extraordinary foliage existing on the property. Armstrong expressed willingness to resolve the outstanding differences of opinion and move forward with this project. Gary Ellerman, SEM Architects, Inc. 7535 East Hampden Avenue, #650, Denver, Colorado, gave a brief slide presentation, created with the use of computer imaging, on the visual aspects of the project. Handouts identifying proposed light fixtures in addition to adjustments, in response to Planning Commission conditions, were distributed to Council. Ellerman requested permission for the lights to remain on after 9 p.m. and was then available to answer questions. Keany expressed concern for the minimal landscaping along Dillon Road and asked the applicant to provide low, coniferous trees for screen. The applicant agreed. Keany questioned the equity of denying a previous applicant's request for a height variance while approving this variance request. Sisk stated his disapproval of the applicant's use of the S-3 open space parcel to satisfy the parking setback requirement along Dillon Road. Sisk agreed to the applicant's lighting requests. Ellerman explained that using the S-3 parcel to satisfy the parking setback was agreed upon when the Final PUD was approved by staff. Howard agreed with Keany with regard to denying the height variance and requesting additional landscaping and stated he would not have a problem with the lighting request. Levihn commended the applicant for working with staff to compromise on the conditions and did not have any objections to the project. 7