City Council Minutes 1998 07 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flags displayed to official U.S. or Colorado State flags only. He requested allowing the wall-mounted sign on the west facing building elevation, as relocating it would remove the sign from symmetry with the entrance. He explained that the CDDSG permits larger signage than proposed, in addition to allowing signs on three faces versus on two, as contained in this proposal. The lighting proposed in the Porte cochere and adjacent to the main building entry is for safety reasons. He offered a compromise to replace the wall-mounted fixtures with down-cast fixtures and expressed willingness to complete a footcandle survey in the development to ensure their lighting is consistent and similar to that provided by the other hotels. If the survey shows their lighting is not similar, they will redesign it to be consistent with others in the development. Patel was then available to answer any questions. Davidson called for public comments. Mark Lionberger, 2075 S. University Blvd, Denver, Colorado, Development Director for the Stonebridge Companies, owners of the Hampton Inn, asked Council to consider the following: the master plan for this area calls for building along Dillon Road to be one-story in height; the footprint of the proposed building has been enlarged, bringing them even closer to Dillon Road; and the grading plan indicates significant sloping from the entrance of the building to the back side along Dillon Road, giving the building 6-7 feet of additional facade exposure. He asked that Council deny this project based upon these issues. Davidson called for Council questions and comments. Lathrop stated he felt the applicant met his expectations on the redesign of the project. He agreed with Patel that moving the sign would create an odd appearance and agreed that staff should evaluate the photometric plan to ensure the lighting is consistent with others in the development. Howard agreed with Lathrop and Patel. Sisk asked staff if the building proposed was, indeed, closer to Dillon Road. Wood replied that he was unsure if it was but stated the building exceeds the 30 foot minimum required setback by 20 feet. Sisk asked staff if the PUD for Lot 2 restricts building to one-story structures. Wood replied the PUD contains no restriction to one-story development on Lot 2, only a 35-foot building height limitation. Sisk suggested using the Courtyard as the comparison for a footcandle survey. 11