Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1703, Minutes <br />August 18, 1997 <br /> <br />keep it that way. They do agree with the wider hallways. The driveway re-engineering will be <br />resolved to the satisfaction of Council. As far as trash storage is concerned, they are proposing on <br />their site plan an enclosed area in which residents would be able to use a chute. The basement <br />location is difficult, due to the fact that the basement is below grade - this will need a closer look. <br />Utilities, exterior equipment and landscaping will be addressed to the satisfaction of Council. Based <br />upon the concerns of the Council, the Planning Department and the area residents would like to <br />propose for them to change the roofline on the back or west elevation of the building. Instead of the <br />triangle, gable end facing to the back, they would agree to design this end to face inside the courtyard. <br />From the eaves down to the grade, the building would be standing approximately at thirty-four feet <br />and this is approximately eleven feet lower at the west wall than what was originally proposed. <br />Secondly, they would agree to move the building forward to create a twenty foot rear transitional <br />yard. This complies with the ordinance and provides them with enough distance from the front right- <br />of-way to prevent the driveway from being too steep. <br /> <br />* Mrs. Thompson left at this point in the meeting, 8:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr, Manlin continued by saying that they would agree to substantially landscape the transitional yards, <br />which includes twenty to twenty-five mature trees along the back of the building which should provide <br />a nice screening for the people living on Donne. He concluded by urging Council to allow them to <br />have the financial motivation to build high quality projects. He said that this project was not precedent <br />setting and that they would work with the staff on the suggested revisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer said that the changes that are being suggested are so substantial, that he would want to <br />see completely revised drawings in front of him and also will want to have the chance to study them <br />thoroughly. He said that he was not prepared to discuss the issue tonight. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Manlin to clarify the business economics behind the danger of reducing the <br />number of units to 12. Mr. Manlin explained that they take the acquisition price and divide that <br />number by the number of units to get a per unit cost. Reducing the units, drives the per unit cost up. <br />Responding further to Mr. Wagner, Mr. Manlin said that the current cost per unit for eighteen units is <br />$240,000 to $287,900. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Munkel, Mr. Manlin explained that the architect changed the pitch of the roof to <br />make the buildings lower. They are using the lowest pitch they can safely utilize for these types of <br />buildings. The lower pitch will not affect the loft area and a dormer window would still be at the roof <br />level at the west elevation. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff asked Mr. Manlin to clarify points involving the height reduction, height elevation and <br />moving the buildings forward, Mr. Manlin provided clarification. <br /> <br /> <br />