Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1772 <br />January 10, 2000 <br /> <br />Mr. Bruce Rennekamp, 527 N. Central, feels this change was submitted in a somewhat <br />questionable manner. He wished to echo the sentiment of the previous speaker, Mike Hill <br />and ask Council to not allow any more changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer moved approval of the amendment to the site plan. Mr. Munkel seconded <br />the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated that his position on this, when it was approved last fall, was that it <br />should have been referred back to the Plan Commission. In the Council's collective <br />wisdom, as we looked at the substantial changes as laid out, overrode his desire to have it <br />go back to the Plan Commission for a thorough review. He categorizes this change as bait <br />and switch. He is not pleased with this at all and will vote Nay. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman said that he thought Lehman Watker's review of the modification, if he is <br />right, was sensible. Mr. Walker said that even if the site plans were drawn exactly as they <br />were on the original approved plans that minimal view of the 4th floor remains the same. <br />Mr. Lieberman does not know if this is true or not, but he did examine the plans and he <br />can't tell. Mr. Walker says that the reason for removing that rear portion of that 4th floor <br />was to decrease the massive effect and since the site lines are unchanged by the additional <br />15 foot in depth, he claims that the original goals are still being attained. Mr. Lieberman <br />feels this is the main reason he is approving this amendment. It does not appear that the <br />change is enough to warrant Council's dismissal of it. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked for clarification from Mr. Ollendorff concerning his comment that the <br />change was substantial. Mr. Ollendorff stated that what he and the planning staff meant <br />by that is that the top floor is not visible from the second floor of the adjacent residences to <br />the east. The top floor is visible if you are standing on the roofs of those adjacent <br />residences. That is minimal to him. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated that this was not the argument brought forward by the residents. Part <br />of the argument was concerning the sun shading of the yards. An analysis was done on <br />this, and the modification was done to minimize the sun shading on the adjacent yards. <br />He does not see any mention of that here and certainly, the City Manager and his staff did <br />not address this and have not heard anything about it tonight, which was a major part of <br />the neighborhood's argument. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel says he understands that Council is approving an additional fifteen foot <br />addition and whether or not sunlight is blocked and whether or not people can see from <br />different levels. He grants that the first building is a real problem, because of the <br />topography there, but he thinks that the intent of the builder was to modify the original <br />design by cutting back on the 4th floor so that some of the issues that the residents raised <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />