Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1705, Minutes 13 <br />September 8, 1997 <br /> <br />for denial. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner responded to Mr. Schoomer by saying that he did not think that this was the <br />best use of that property. He could think of whole lot of bad uses of the land and he could <br />think of a lot of really good ones. This is not an acceptable use. We are in an area of <br />subjective judgment. Mr. Schoomer said that this issue was for the courts to determine, <br />not himself or Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wagner agreed. As far as Mr. Schoomer's reference to <br />the pattern in Clayton and after attending some of the Clayton meetings, Mr. Wagner said <br />he was glad that we were not Clayton. He is glad that we do not think of our <br />neighborhoods as an economic resource to be determined by the market value. He is glad <br />that we have other values in our neighborhoods. Mr. Wagner urged his colleagues to <br />consider these neighborhood values, which makes us different than Clayton. Mr. Wagner <br />said that Mr. Schoomer referred to the code as setting the limit on parking. Mr. Wagner <br />pointed out that those were minimum limits. There is nothing that says you can not have <br />more parking than one and a half. Again, the code is outdated and outmoded. in the <br />nineties, people buying the two bedrooms are going to have two cars. The Council should, <br />for the sake of our community, make a reasonable judgement that there is going to be two <br />cars per household. Where are they going to park if we do not stand up right now and say <br />we need more parking. Mr. Wagner believes there should be two cars per family unit at a <br />minimum. Some neighborhoods allow parking on the street and along the curb. This is <br />not one of those neighborhoods. This is an exceptional application of that code. We <br />should recognize that and demand more parking. Beyond that, the delivery vans and <br />service vehicles are going to end up parking on North ~ South. !t was suggested by the <br />City Manager that the Council had the power to cut into the sidewalk and greenspace and <br />spend our own money to solve that problem. Mr. Wagner said he was not ready to <br />commit to this option. He continued saying that this site plan was highly flawed and with <br />all due respect to Mr. Schoomer, he urged Council to deny the site plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman asked Mr. Oilendorff if he had received a topographical view of what <br />position these buildings would take in reference to the lay of the land. Mr. Ollendorff said <br />that he had nothing new other than the plans that the Council had and the drawing <br />displayed to Council at the last meeting. !t showed that the roofline, which is lower now, <br />would have been seven feet above one of the adjacent homes, four feet above the other <br />one. The roofline on the westside now as proposed, is exactly what people would see if <br />there were no loft bedrooms or fourth floor. Mr. Lieberman said that the land that these <br />three properties are on have different elevations, therefore, he was kind of anxious to see <br />how they would actually sit in reference to the Donne homes. Mr. O!lendorff said that one <br />corner is shown on the plans the Council has, the other does not show. Mr. Lieberman <br />said that he realizes that there are 1.5 parking spaces for two bedrooms, and a two space <br />requirement for three bedrooms. He tends to agree with Mr. Wagner, however, that it is <br /> <br /> <br />