06/17/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 6-17-02 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS. • Consideration of BOA Case No. 2002-2 (Goldberg Properties) [Ed. Note: At the April 16, 2002 Board of Appeals meeting, the Board considered the request from Goldberg Companies for a 21' variance to allow a building height of 56' and the request for a "temporary" 800 foot variance to allow a cul-de-sac street to be 1300 feet long. The Board denied the request.] Council President Buckholtz asked Ms. Calta if there was anything she wished to explain about what we need to do. Ms. Calta commented that what has been placed on the agenda is consideration of the Board of Appeals Case No. 2002-02. There is also a recommendation by Planning and Zoning which was an approval of the roadway, the site plan at the Metro Park entrance which was approved contingent upon the approval of those variances which were actually denied by the Board of Appeals. We will take consideration of the Board of Appeals case and depending upon that vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision will then be up for approval. - Council President Buckholtz questioned if similar to a resolution, do we need a motion to entertain this followed by discussion? Ms. Calta said if you would like to open up a hearing, you would make a motion and we can go forward with the variance and allowing the representative from the development company to speak. Council President Buckholtz asked if anybody wished to entertain a motion to open this up for reconsideration or to look at these Board of Appeals's decision on that. Mrs. Cinco, seconded by Mrs. Mills, made a motion to reconsider the Board of Appeals' case. Roll Call: AYES: All NAYS: None Motion Carried Hearing Open Council President Buckholtz said Eric Bell from Goldberg Properties is here. Mr. Marquardt thinks there should be a clarification of what the issues are. The variances, as I understand it, that were denied were for the cul-de-sac on the road as it is greater than 500'. The other variance was for the height variance for the building which was 4-story rather than 3-story. (He asked Mr. Samac is this was correct.) Mr. Samac said the height variance was for a 21' variance. The number of floors really didn't come ? into play. The variance for the cul-de-sac was for a temporary 800' variance to allow the cul-de-sac to be 1300' long. By temporary, it was meant that as the other parcels in the development area were 6