My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006/03/01 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2006
>
2006/03/01 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2017 8:27:58 AM
Creation date
2/24/2017 8:27:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
3/1/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7 <br /> no guarantee that people want to live on the street. Our marketing report <br /> described this block as excellent for apartments and marginally good for condos. <br /> Secondly, we are building an underground parking garage to go with the units. <br /> Asked Planning Commission for their support of the project. <br /> Commissioner Ebert asked if there were any questions. <br /> Commissioner Trautman referred to the south and east elevations and asked <br /> about the alley setback and building modulation. Charles Morgan, 7301 Beverly <br /> Lane, stated that the color changes in the drawing represented where the <br /> building modulation was. He referred to the revised elevation and explained that <br /> the front of the building had been stepped back to comply with City requirements <br /> and felt that the building modulation exceeded city standards. <br /> Citizen Comments <br /> Valerie Steele, 2521 Grand Avenue, felt that the changes proposed to the <br /> approved building design were major and that will negatively impact health, <br /> safety and welfare of the general public. The proposed changes include a 5 <br /> story building over one level of parking, a front step back that has been <br /> decreased by 1 foot, generously sloping roofs on the sides has been eliminated, <br /> and the rear modulation has been eliminated. She made some comparisons to <br /> the Bayside Condominiums, adding that the proposal included further <br /> encroachment into side setbacks for parking. She was concerned over fire <br /> department access to the building and building changes made during <br /> construction of the proposal. She requested that Planning Commission deny the <br /> proposed changes and recommended that the City develop downtown <br /> transitional design standards prior to developing in these areas. <br /> Bill Belshaw, 2111 Rucker, asked if Planning Commission was supplied with <br /> drawings for the bump-out on the first floor for the parking. Mr. Giffen stated that <br /> bump-out is an administrative modification that has been applied for and it only <br /> affects the area below the level of the first floor and is not something that is <br /> before Commission to consider. The matter will be reviewed administratively per <br /> the City's multiple family development standards. <br /> Mr. Belshaw presented additional background information from the <br /> neighborhood's point of view. A development agreement was previously <br /> approved by Mr. Zlab and the City to ensure the structure proposed by the <br /> applicant would be built and would appear substantially as depicted in the <br /> attached exhibits to the development agreement. The Bayside neighbors relied <br /> on the conditions of the development agreement to ensure that the building <br /> would not be similar to the Bayside Condominiums. He disagreed with the staff <br /> findings regarding the quality and compatibility of the modified proposal. The <br /> changed building design is more massive than the original design, the most <br /> prevalent view of the building (the two side elevations) appear much higher due <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.