CC MIN 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�� City Clerk Hildebrand reported the Afftdavit of Publication of Notice of Hearing and the Affidavit of Mailing are on file in her office. Speer McClellan, 275 Hubbard, representing the applicant for the sub�ect Planned Development Permit, commented concerning the findings , of the Planning Commission which prompted their denial of the appli- cation Mr McClellan noted that while the backup area for the car- ports is small, it exceeds by one foot that required for an apartment on the same site, that cars are becoming shorter, that the legally acceptable open space provided somewhat exceeds that required for an apartment building, that each unit has its own entrance and exit, that an apartment building could be constructed on the site w�th only architectural approval; that the proposed density is not ex- cessive, that there has been no neighborhood protest, and that the applicant intends to occupy one of the units In response to ques- tion, Mr. McClellan acknowledged that he was not involved tn the design of the proposed development but was asked to represent the developer at this time. John Siekierski 1710 Oak Avenue, applicant, insisted that the pro- posed development meets minimum ordinance standards, stating in response to questions that he has attempted to correct any de- ficienies and is anxious to cooperate. It was explained that while an apartment building may be constructed on the site which meets minimum standards, the developer has made application for a Planned Development Permit which allows �udgment to be made of the quality of design and whether imaginative use has been made of the site, while the developer obtains certain other benefits such as the ability to sell the units as separate homes. Such permits are intended to be of mutual value,both to the City and to the developer beyond the ' benefits which might be derived from construction of an ordinary apartment building In response to question, Planning Director Schroeter advised that he believed better development of the site would be possible without too much redesign, that the Planning Commission believes a planned development offers opportunity for better quality development than simply meeting minimum standards, that the main open space area is composed of walkways and is not usable, that a formula exists for counting certain private open space at two-thirds the value of common open space, that the development is not submitted to the Architectural Committee for consideration of architectural features until the PD application has been approved by the Planning Comm�s- sion and Council, and that applicants for PD permits are advised that evaluation will be made from the standpoint of quality not �ust minimum standards I Discuss�on followed with Mr HcClellan and Mr Siekierski responding to questions from City Attorney Schricker concerning the applicant's understanding of the nature of a Planned Development. Mayor Barrett invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so No one wished to speak. MOTION Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Councilman Chandler, , to close the public hearing. Discussion followed and Mr. Siekierski, Mr. Fales, Mr. Schricker and Mr Schroeter commented and replied to questions concerning Reg Mtg -5- 5/1/78