Planning Commission Minutes 2017 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2017 Page 9 of 19 These are large buildings and this building is 109,000 SF. We just finished a building at 633 CTC Blvd which is 153,000 SF. They are very long, very deep, and you can't hide them. We try to make them pleasing environments for tenants. We have pride of ownership in these buildings. The City can look at these buildings as a positive employment center that generates revenue for you and us. The building to the south at 2000 Taylor was completed in 2016, is fully leased, and will be occupied by Sierra Nevada. The 633 CTC Blvd building is being finalized with the Building Department related to completion and is fully leased. We are in for building permit for the first building at Louisville Corporate Campus on Dillon Road and will be building the entire 33 acres infrastructure. We feel very strongly about our product and meeting our tenants' demands and satisfying the City's requirements. We feel differently than Staff that we have satisfied the ordinance requirements in our opinion. Commission Questions of Applicant: Brauneis asks about the signage. Vasbinder says this is an international company with stringent criteria that they must satisfy. Because of the location and their opinion that this will generate a substantial amount of business for the CTC and this facility, they want to make sure that they can identify where people need to turn. The sign request is to substantially increase the size of the graphics and we have asked for a waiver to allow this in three locations. It is criteria that we try to satisfy because of their requirements. Hsu says with reference to this, can you talk about the conservation easement and the driveway and the slope. Vasbinder points out where the conservation easement is located. This has been confusing for some time. We own the conservation easement. I do not remember why we gave the city three different tracts instead of one piece of property when we did the plat. A portion of the driveway is in the conservation easement. There is another reason to do it this proposed way other than grade. I don't want to bring the driveway south because it gives a customer the opportunity to make an illegal turn movement, but then they couldn't go anywhere because of gates. The customer will need to back out and it could cause potential traffic conflicts. Our traffic consultant confirms this. Brauneis asks what is the difference in slope between the proposed or straightened. Vasbinder says the Fire Dept. is okay with this design. Originally, this slope and the three driveways were greater than 10% slope which is beyond the required slope for Fire Dept. access, particularly if there is a weather event. If we bring the driveway farther south, we aggravate the situation. Zuccaro says to clarify the slope issue, in looking at the documents, the slope on the west driveway in the conservation easement is a little over 8%. That was the original proposal. The driveway on the east exceeded 10% so the Fire Dept. said all driveways have to be less than 10%, but did not specify which ones. The west driveway has always been 8%. If you bring the west driveway to the south, while we have not seen an alternative design, it appears you could tie in less than 10%. It is worth additional study. It has not been demonstrated to a level we are comfortable with that you can't meet a 10% or less slope if you move it south. Brauneis says what are other concerns? Will you lose some parking spaces? Vasbinder says we lose the opportunity to slope. Instead of having one wall, we may end up with more. It pushes everything into the plaza, a pleasing area, for the customer entrance. We have no understanding why Staff is of the opinion that we can't do a driveway in our conservation easement. Hsu says one concern I have is probably reflected in the original rezoning request. The north side is facing a public viewable side and looks very massive. How does this north side go above the IDDSG?