CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Couneil Member Hartnett said that the "members of the public who commented on the public process that preceded this evening are correct in a predominant impression that this would not be a site for 4-story office building. I was at some of the public hearings and recalling back, one would not have the impression that 4 stories would be built there. But I also recall that it was not just stated in writing, but it was stated at the meetings that the zoning included the low-rise. In effect, the actual description of what could occur there was publicly stated, but the discussion was not about building offices, it was about building other things, and I think that is why people have the reasonable impression that offices would not be built there. Nonetheless, it is my view, from a legal point of view, that the developer has the right to build a 4-story commercial office building as had been approved through the Architectural Permit stage. And that absent this settlement, it is my opinion that we could not prevent the developer from doing so. Given that and given also the legal advice from our City Attorney, the result of a lawsuit not resulting in a rezoning of the property in effect but simply a change in a decision on the height of the building, we would still have a commercial office complex there and in the best case it would be up to two stories. I think we would lose that lawsuit in any event, and the developer would be entitled to build a 4-story office building. I think we would not get a satisfactory result from a lawsuit. Additionally, it is my opinion that should we enact a moratorium on this property and subsequently rezone it to residential, nonetheless, even if we were to do that and this has been confirmed by our counsel, this developer would still have the right to build a commercial office building, a 4-story office building, because of the entitlements that have already, as a matter of law, been received. I don't see from legislative action or from legal action that we could affect the right to build a four-story building. Given that and given the circumstances that we find ourselves, I do think that two 2-story office building as indicated in the settlement agreement is a proper thing to do. "It is the best we can accomplish, and it is more than we could have accomplished through legal action. The developer, through this agreement, reduced the square footage of the project by over 23% and it is a significant reduction. It will have some reduction in traffic. We have introduced an ordinance for a moratorium on adjoining property and property in the area that currently could be developed in ways that would probably enhance increased traffic rnuch further than what might be allowed. Once we take a look at the property and perhaps restrict the development on that adjoining property, hopefully, that will have an impact on a traffic increase as well. The City will be doing pedestrian and traffic safety improvements as a result of this. The developer would, by this agreement in a proportional way, contribute as much or more than Electronic Arts did with respect to its project... The Architectural Advisory Committee will have another look at this and the agreement calls for them to review it for design and materials and colors. I think that would give the possibility of having a good-looking project. I recognize that it does not matter how good it looks, if you don't like commercial, you don't want commercial, and this settlement simply does not accommodate that issue. The developer has acted very reasonably. He played by the law and by the rules, and he is entitled to build a much bigger project than would otherwise result from this settlement. So, they do have the right to proceed." ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18,1997 MINUTES Page No. 120 PAGE 15