Laserfiche WebLink
Davidson excused Lathrop and Sisk from discussions on Lot 1. 3 <br />LOT 1 <br />Wood continued that on Lot 1, Bank of Boulder proposed a 6,096 s.f., one -story structure with an <br />additional 2,850 s.f. of structure to cover the five drive -up lanes and one ATM lane. Building <br />coverage was proposed at 17% with 36% of the site in open space and 37 parking spaces. HVAC <br />mechanical units will be roof mounted and fully screened. Initial staffing was anticipated for six <br />employees with a potential of 12. The applicant would be coming forward through the Planning <br />Commission requesting a temporary use authorization for a trailer with two drive -up lanes adjacent <br />to the trailer located on the west end of the site. This will be moved on the site during construction, <br />about eight months. Staffs issue with Lot 1 would be the evaluation of finish floor elevations with <br />respect to establishing control points through the construction process to ensure that finish floor <br />elevations are constructed as proposed on the final grading plan. Wood stated that on Lot 1 they <br />would be formalizing staff comments regarding some further disclosure on building lighting, signage, <br />trash dumpster locations, method of screening, as well as architectural comments related to the <br />proposed building. The access easement between Lots 1 2 would be the primary point of entrance <br />for the Bank of Boulder for people utilizing the drive -thru lanes. Staff was concerned about the, <br />method of buffering and landscaping behind the shared access between Lots 1 2. <br />Davidson called for applicant's presentation. <br />Marcus DePlant, representing Knudson Gloss Architects and the Bank of Boulder, pointed out that <br />there is no need for a trash dumpster for the Bank of Boulder as trash is taken care of internally. <br />Concerning lighting, there are pole lights for the general parking lighting. He reviewed the lighting <br />plan including the proposed low voltage wall sconces for the primary entrances to the bank. <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. <br />Mayer was concerned that, if another tenant ever moves into the bank building, there will be no trash <br />dumpster. He wanted the pedestrian access across the drive -thru distinctly identified to alert <br />motorist. He preferred shingles to a metal roof. He was concerned about the temporary use of a <br />trailer on the site for eight months. <br />Keany felt there was too much parking at 37 spaces. He preferred under 30 spaces. <br />Howard was concerned about six lanes spilling out into the joint access, especially during peak times. <br />Pedestrian access was a concern. He wanted the McCaslin side of the building architecturally broken <br />up. <br />Bill Simmons, City Administrator, pointed out the several large, mature trees on the northeast corner <br />of the site. How would they be impacted? He felt most of the trees would not be transplantable. He <br />wanted to know how that would be mitigated. When the overall development plan for Parcel 1 was <br />4 <br />