2004-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

40 PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: GRANTING ENCROACHMENT FOR FOOTERS/BALCONY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5TM AND WATER STREETS Mr. Tolbert said that the request is for the City to grant an encroachment of 2.2' for underground footings and 18" for balcony overhangs. Mr. Tolbert noted that the Board of Architectural Review has approved the design. The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said the balconies will be on the third and fourth floors. On motion by Mr. Caravati, seconded by Mr. Schilling, the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ENCROACHMENTS OVER AND WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE CORNER OF WATER STREET AND 5TM STREET, S.E." was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. ORDINANCE: REZONING COMMERCE STREET AND 6TM STREET PROPERTY TO PUD (2nd reading) Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that the rezoning was deferred by Council at its July 19th meeting because of questions about the neighborhood petition and height of the units. Ms. Scala said that the units are proposed to be 35' tall, and, according to the architects, the church next door is 27' tall. Ms. Scala said that staffs original recommendation was to allow the three townhouses, but not the accessory unit to the house. Mr. Caravati asked if staffs recommendation has changed about the accessory unit, and Ms. Scala said that recommendation was made to the Planning Commission who recommended approval of the accessory unit. Mr. Schilling said he finds it troubling that the drawing showing the height of the proposed units is now accurate, but the previous one was way off. He said he is troubled that this got by the Planning Commission. He said he also finds the offer of $2,800 to waive the green space requirement troubling. He said he does not want to set a precedent for buying the way out of requirements. Mr. Schilling said that standards for townhouses in the City Code are different than PUD standards, and when there is a conflict the standards for townhouses must prevail. Mr. Schilling said the standards proposed for these townhouses do not qualify, and referred to the minimum requirement of 1200 square feet as one example. Mr. Schilling listed objectives for PUDs, and said that in his mind, he does not see any strong agreement with the objectives, and most of the objectives are not met. He said open space is considered important enough that it must be phased in and the access is important. He said it is bad policy to waive the open space requirement. He said these are clearly townhouses. Mr. Brown said that the townhouse requirements are not in conflict with any PUD regulations. He agreed that there is some ambiguity in the Code that could be clarified. He said a PUD allows the applicant to define the standards. Mr. Lynch said he does not think the Code is ambiguous. He said there are minimum requirements for townhouses and they shall prevail. He said this proposal is taking the concept of PUD and stretching it, and said it is barely the original intent. He said he likes the project and would like to see the context in which it could go forward, but he feels it is a stretch to put it under the PUD ordinance. Mr. Lynch said there needs to be a community benefit in order to waive the open space requirement. Mr. Lynch said he does not think this project meets the requirement of a PUD. He said good design is not a justification for increased density. Mr. Lynch made a motion to defer the rezoning until there is a recommendation that has a public component, or a comparable value to the community in waiving the open space requirement.