Res96 12834 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

through the campus. The use of a tall building also allows the buildings to be located closer to the center of the site and further away from residential areas. The site plan allows for the creation of large, varied open space areas, many of which will be open to the community. If all of the buildings were built at 100 feet or less, another building probably would have to be added to the site. This would reduce the area available for open space and recreation uses, thereby increasing the burden on community parks. The proposed altemative would not reduce any significant impacts of the Project and could result in decreased open space and increased impacts on adjacent residents. The quality of the architecture and the appearance of the Project would be diminished. The GID hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. The GID further finds that, while this alternative may be feasible, it would not meet the objectives of the project. 4.4.2 Switch the Locations of the 10-Story Building and the 8-Story Building Description of the Alternative: During the June 18, 1996 Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Commissioner Warty proposed exchanging the 1 O-story building with the 8-story building. Comparison of the Alternative to the Project: The architects for the Project testified at the June 19, 1996 hearing that they had studied every conceivable combination of buildings and that rearranging the buildings would bring the Project closer to a "sterile repetitious building type." The purpose of the height variation is to create visual interest and to be able to see through and comprehend the whole campus, rather than just seeing the from wall of the first building. Rearranging the buildings would result in the sort of "fiat and forbidding presence" that the current design attempts to avoid. (See June 19 Transcript, pp. 410-412.) Furthermore, this alteration would not reduce shadows on residential areas. According to Project architects, the exchange would have "virtually no appreciable different impacts on the residential community." This alternative would not reduce any significant impacts of the Project. The quality of the architecture and the appearance of the Project would be diminished. The GID hereby finds that th~s alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. The GID further finds that, while this alternative may be feasible, it would not meet the objectives of the project. -41- GIDEIRFD.DOC 7/23D6 5:44 PM