Laserfiche WebLink
asked if a shared agreement should be submitted for the joint dumpster and recycling <br />container. Gundlach replied that it could be added in the shared parking agreement and <br />would recommend it. Baker stated the garbage and recycling containers are located <br />within the setback, which is not allowed. Gundlach apologized for not catching that error <br />and would add that as a condition of approval. Schiferl asked the applicant to clarify how <br />they process their recycling and garbage, since it appears to be mislabeled on the plans. <br />Bob Smith, owner of the Garage, replied that the garbage would be moved out of the <br />setback and would have shared access. The recycling container currently sits on the east <br />end of his building and would be moved to allow for shared access. <br />Zisla asked for a clarification with regard to the materials that would be used on the <br />exterior of the building. Gundlach replied that a mixture of brick veneer, stucco and <br />stone would be used. Those materials are used at Brighton Village, as well as at The <br />Garage. Zisla asked for a clarification regarding the use of second story. Peter <br />Murlowski, Timbercraft, replied that the second floor would be for limited storage for the <br />three tenants. Zisla asked how the building would tie in or compliment the buildings <br />within Brighton Village. Murlowski replied that the building exterior would use similar <br />materials and colors of Brighton Village, but the architecture is different to act as a buffer <br />between the residential neighborhood and the predominately commercial area of Brighton <br />Village. <br />Anthony F Kromrey, 2066 Palmer Drive, stated that he would like the signs to be <br />reviewed to make sure that their placement would not create an obstacle for traffic. <br />Baker asked if the two restricted parking stalls, for fuel efficient cars and car pools, <br />would increase the parking issue on the site since parking is already limited. Murlowski <br />replied that the tenants believe that there will be plenty of parking, since the employees <br />will be parking in the lot on the east side of The Garage. <br />Motion by Baker, second by Danger to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />S ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. <br />Baker stated that he does not believe the applicant has met the requirement of the special <br />use permit since the enhanced landscaping could be extended to enhance the back yard <br />that abuts the residential neighborhood. He also believes that by restricting two parking <br />spaces for fuel efficient vehicles and car pools is not an enhancement, there is no <br />pedestrian link, and the building's architecture is not compatible with Brighton Village. <br />He suggested that since a shared parking agreement would be in place that enhanced <br />landscaping could be extended to The Garage site and a pedestrian link could be added at <br />the eastern end of the lot. Danger replied that these issues should have been addressed at <br />an earlier meeting. Baker replied that some of those elements were suggested at the last <br />meeting but does not believe the applicant has adequately addressed those elements. <br />Schiferl asked staff to clarify the language of the new overlay ordinance regarding <br />architectural compatibility with Brighton Village. Gundlach replied that the exact <br />