04/23/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1808 April 23, 2001 peak roof elevation 586 feet, and contingent upon resubdividing to include the north 50 feet of 8655 West Kingsbury in Lot 3 of the Gateswodh addition. This action could be taken by the City Council at this time or it could be held over to the May 7 meeting at which the zoning public hearing is scheduled. Mr. Munkel moved approval. Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion. Responding to Mr. Munkel, Mr. Ollendorff reported that the owner of #2 has an option until approximately May 10'h. Responding to Mr. Lieberman the property is at 8655 Kingsbury. The motion to approve carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #8 - GARDEN APARTMENT SITE PLAN FOR 7302-16 FORSYTH: Mr. Ollendorff recommends approval of the site plan for the proposed 3-story, 12 unit garden apartment building similar to the project recently approved to the west of this site. There are a number of conditions which are recommended for inclusion: development must be in full compliance with submitted plans including revisions dated April 20, 2001, regarding decks, condensers, rear stairs, alley improvement and brick material; landscaping meeting the requirements of the City Forester; lighting meeting zoning code; drainage and grading meeting outside agency requirements; shared facilities exhaust control; approved construction traffic, parking and public property maintenance plans; undergrounding and/or screening of utilities; and construction of parking revisions as needed. The above conditions combined with plan revisions carry out staff recommendations and adjacent neighbors recommendations with one item requiring further discussion. The plan as presented meets the front and rear setback requirements in our zoning ordinance, however, neighbors request a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow the project to be moved north at least three feet. The abutting residential property owners indicate that the proximity of this project to their homes is the single most important issue. The developer does not object to this plan revision. I cannot promote the variance since it might set a precedent which would be harmful in other situations. I do support giving the neighbors the opportunity to make their case before the Board of Adjustment and therefore suggest that City Council add a condition stating that the front setback must conform to Board of Adjustment decision, but not less than 37 feet. The advocates for this change will have to present a convincing case that the circumstances here are very unusual and therefore not likely to become a dangerous precedent for other property in the neighborhood. With the recommended conditions attached, the plan will result in an excellent project enhancing this beautiful University City neighborhood. 7