City Council Agenda and Packet 1998 11 17

Home Browse Search

There is only a slight differentiation of building materials presented on the PUD. With exception of the stone treatments at building entries, the only other material is the EFIS. The PUD should be revised to incorporate other appropriate building materials, including brick, as a means to reduce the apparent size and massing of the project. Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. Arlin Lehman, 908 Main Street, Louisville, Colorado, gave a brief history on the project. He stated that when he started he was under the assumption that the same guidelines for his building at 908 Main Street would apply to this building. He has since redesigned the building several times in an effort to conform with the proposed Downtown Design Guidelines. He explained the proposed diagonal parking plan. He stated that in order to accommodate parking, the footprint of the building would need to be reduced. To make the building economically feasible would then require increasing the building height to provide additional square footage. He stated that Erik Hartronft, project architect, was available to provide additional details. Erik Hartronft, 801 Main Street, Louisville, Colorado, gave a brief overview of the project. He explained that the diagonal parking was designed to provide quick in-and-out parking for retail customers. He requested that Council evaluate whether or not Front Street should be a thoroughfare for commuter traffic. He suggested that it be used for slow traffic and parking. He explained the materials selected for the: building's exterior. He was then available to answer questions. Davidson reminded Council that the appropriate time for questions would be when the proposal h~s passed Planning Commission and i.s forwarded to Council for approval. Davidson commended the applicant for their parking proposal but questioned who would fund the improvements to create the parking spaces. He commended Hartronft on the design of the building. Lathrop felt that the parking concept was unique. He questioned whether it would work along Walnut Street. He felt that density and height would be a problem with this building. Howard commended the applicant for their parking proposal. He expressed concern for the mass of the proposed building and its affect on the floor area ratio (FAR) in this area. He would prefer that the basement be used for storage, etc. Sisk asked for the square footage of the existing structures to verify that the applicant is proposing to replace 2,000 sf of structure with 26,000 sf. Hartranft replied that those approximations were correct. 11