06-04-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

originally proposed; that the site plan before Council was drastically different from the one first presented to the Planning Commission; that the first site plan had called for a row of structures parallel to Mabury which presented a monot- onous view; that the present site plan had variety, a pleasing appearance, a very desirable streetscape, and the number of units had been reduced from 320 to 290; that to limit the height of the R 4 buildings within 150 feet of the buffer zone would mean that for 250 feet into the property, they could not build a two-story building; that their proposal called for 49.33% open space instead of the 50% required, which was a nominal difference especially with the park adjoining the project; and that 1,750 multiple-family residential units are still contemplated for the Park Center Project, not 2,094, which was the maximum development estimated by the Environmental Impact Report consultant. In rebuttal, Mr. Schwarz reiterated the stand that appellants did not want a two-story apartment building within R 1 zoned property. Mr. Bricken stated that the fact that there were nine people in the audience opposing the appeal and that a lot of time and money put into a proposal, did not necessarily mean that the evidence might not be wrong, and that the total planned project should be considered along with each increment. In response to inquiries from Council regarding the status of the property between 14th and 15th Streets, Gene Hoggatt of O.K. Earl Corporation gave an explanation of the zoning that had taken place and some background concerning the dedication of the park. The Mayor stated that he agreed with Mr. Schwarz with regard to the Environmental Impact Reports; that he did not like the idea of having the developer hire the consultant; that he hoped the policy would be changed to provide for the City to hire the consultant so that the opinion of an objective third party could be obtained. There were no other proponents or opponents in the matter, and the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Griset's motion to approve and adopt the Environ- mental Impact Report submitted, including all written and oral testimony supplied by proponents, opponents, staff, and developer, was seconded by Councilman Ward, and unanimously carried on a 6 - 0 vote. Prior to voting, the City Attorney stated that the Environmental Impact Report should apply only to the particular acreage in the project in question. Councilman Griset's motion to uphold the decision of the Plan- ning Commission and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving Variance Application 73-6 subject to conditions of approval contained in the Commission report, was seconded by Councilman Ward, and carried on the following vote: AYES: Griset, Ward, Markel, Garthe NOES: Yamamoto, Patterson ABSENT: Evans CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 199 JUNE 4, 1973