Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1755 <br />May 10, 1999 <br /> <br />entitled to the highest and best use under the law. The City certainly needs and is in favor <br />of development for this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer moved to defer these two items to the City Manager and City staff. Mr. <br />Sharp seconded tile motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman sa,d that this whole thing creates a great deal of concern. The City Manager <br />states that the height requirement of the code is being met. Mr. Ollendorff said that is was <br />minimally. Mr. Lieberman stated that whether or not it is minimally met is irrelevant - it is <br />being met. Mr. Oltendorff agreed. The setback requirements are being met. The density, <br />building size requirements, and lot coverage are being met. The one thing that is not being <br />met is the distance between buildings. He is wondering if our zoning code does not give <br />developers a wrong message, as it stands now. The problem seems to be when something <br />is to be built, like :his, in height, mass and density, within close proximity to a single family <br />residential area. Maybe another variation of the code should be looked at dealing with this <br />type of situation. ]'he way the code is now is not fair to the developers. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner thinks that Mr. Lieberman's comments make a lot of sense. He thinks this <br />project will be a high quality project, and in another location, would be welcome with open <br />arms. He believes that the problem is the massive nature of the project in conjunction with <br />two nicely establisqed single residential neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer said that he agreed with the one point that Mr. Lieberman raised about the <br />application being made under the code and the requirements have been met except for the <br />one concerning the distance between buildings and harmful impact. If there are <br />modifications that ;an be made to deal with these, then it should be looked at. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel said that the Council approved a project on this site a couple of years ago and <br />he understands that this is the third time that this same developer has come before the <br />Council for a project. He does not think it is unreasonable to ask him to reconsider sections <br />of this project to meet the code. He likes the height of the building in the first phase, <br />which is lower thar the one approved last time. He is having trouble visualizing this <br />massive structure fitting in anywhere along this street from Kingsbury to Delmar. He <br />believes that it can be modified, however. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said ':hat at this site, the members of Council had determined that they <br />wanted to see somE: type of modification in this area. To say that we now don't is rejecting <br />our previous decisi¢,n. Mayor Adams asked Mr. Ollendorff if the rejection was on the space <br />between the buildings to each other. Would a problem still be present if the developer <br />decided to build one; structure covering the same floor area as the three separate buildings. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />