City Council Minutes 2000 05 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting May 2, 2000 Page 13 Wood noted the architectural design and materials are similar to the adjacent Corporate Center I building. The building would be constructed of brick, synthetic stucco and cast stone. The lighting is identical to the fixtures in place on the adjacent parcel. The parking lot lights are 250-watt metal halide fixtures on 24-foot poles. The light levels comply with minimum requirements of the CDDSG, without over illuminating the site. One sign is proposed off Coal Creek Circle and complies with the design previously approved for the two other office buildings in the park. Additionally there are two wall signs that will be in 18" letters. Wood stated that the Planning Commission supports the application and recommends approval, with four remaining conditions the applicant will address. Davidson called for Applicant presentation. Gary Ellermann, SEM Architects Inc., 677 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200, Denver, CO, reviewed the Coal Creek Business Park, Corporate Center II proposal through a PowerPoint slide presentation. Gregory Armstrong, Executive Vice President of Trammell Crow Denver Development, 7535 East Hampden Avenue, Suite 650, Denver, CO, stated that they are committed to the quality of the project which began two years ago. He noted that the high quality of the project started with three objectives: 1.) To meet the City's gateway vision objectives, 2.) To enable the applicant to compete in the marketplace, and 3.) Attract quality employers into the Coal Creek Business Park. Armstrong stated that they have worked with the City Staff, and in his opinion, have met those goals. Armstrong noted that because of past success, they are prepared to move into the next stage of development. He stated that the process has proceeded very smoothly through meetings with Staff and the Planning Commission, and that the only exception, is the issue of parking. Armstrong stated that he was unclear why the issue of parking was made as a friendly amendment to the Planning Commission motion. He stated that the applicant has requested a higher ratio in parking in response to tenant's parking demands. He also stated that the parking enables the tenants to compete in a very aggressive market, with Interlocken and Westmoor Technology Park. Surveys of parking ratios for Boulder and the Northwest Office Building were distributed. Also distributed was a handout with letters of intent from prospective tenants including their projected parking needs. Armstrong stated they have met the design standards in all respects. 13